<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_18_0337223</id>
	<title>UK Police Raid Party After Seeing "All-Night" Tag On Facebook</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247940540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals. 'Riot police stormed a man's 30th birthday barbecue for 15 guests because it was <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/17/police\_raid\_birthday\_barbecue\_facebook\_invitation/">advertised as an "all-night" party on Facebook</a>. Four police cars, a riot van, and a force helicopter were dispatched to a privately-owned field in a small village near Sowton, Devon in the UK on Saturday, ordering the party shut down or everyone would be arrested. The birthday barbecue was busted up <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/england/devon/8155441.stm">before they even had a chance to plug the music in</a>, reports the BBC. It was about 4pm when eight officers with camouflage pants and body armor jumped out of their vehicles and ordered everyone out about an hour into the party.' The event's organizer, Andrew Poole, said, 'The police had full-on camouflage trousers on and body-armour, it was ridiculous. There were also several plain-clothes officers as well ... they kept on insisting it has been advertised it as an all-night rave on the internet. The times on it were put as "overnight" in case people wanted to sleep-over, but after being explained this they were still banging on saying it was advertised on the internet. They wouldn't accept it wasn't a rave. It was <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200310/Police-raid-30th-birthday-barbecue-man-used-Facebook-invite-friends.html">in a completely isolated field</a>.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals .
'Riot police stormed a man 's 30th birthday barbecue for 15 guests because it was advertised as an " all-night " party on Facebook .
Four police cars , a riot van , and a force helicopter were dispatched to a privately-owned field in a small village near Sowton , Devon in the UK on Saturday , ordering the party shut down or everyone would be arrested .
The birthday barbecue was busted up before they even had a chance to plug the music in , reports the BBC .
It was about 4pm when eight officers with camouflage pants and body armor jumped out of their vehicles and ordered everyone out about an hour into the party .
' The event 's organizer , Andrew Poole , said , 'The police had full-on camouflage trousers on and body-armour , it was ridiculous .
There were also several plain-clothes officers as well ... they kept on insisting it has been advertised it as an all-night rave on the internet .
The times on it were put as " overnight " in case people wanted to sleep-over , but after being explained this they were still banging on saying it was advertised on the internet .
They would n't accept it was n't a rave .
It was in a completely isolated field .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals.
'Riot police stormed a man's 30th birthday barbecue for 15 guests because it was advertised as an "all-night" party on Facebook.
Four police cars, a riot van, and a force helicopter were dispatched to a privately-owned field in a small village near Sowton, Devon in the UK on Saturday, ordering the party shut down or everyone would be arrested.
The birthday barbecue was busted up before they even had a chance to plug the music in, reports the BBC.
It was about 4pm when eight officers with camouflage pants and body armor jumped out of their vehicles and ordered everyone out about an hour into the party.
' The event's organizer, Andrew Poole, said, 'The police had full-on camouflage trousers on and body-armour, it was ridiculous.
There were also several plain-clothes officers as well ... they kept on insisting it has been advertised it as an all-night rave on the internet.
The times on it were put as "overnight" in case people wanted to sleep-over, but after being explained this they were still banging on saying it was advertised on the internet.
They wouldn't accept it wasn't a rave.
It was in a completely isolated field.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738977</id>
	<title>Grow a backbone</title>
	<author>davro</author>
	<datestamp>1247950020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook == Baitbook

It time to stand up and take the fight to them, these idiots have restricted are liberty for long enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook = = Baitbook It time to stand up and take the fight to them , these idiots have restricted are liberty for long enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook == Baitbook

It time to stand up and take the fight to them, these idiots have restricted are liberty for long enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739269</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, yeah, I can believe that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247911860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do this thing called "speaking to our neighbours". If they are being too loud we go and ask them to be quiet instead of calling the police. Similarly, if we are having a party, we tell the neighbours and invite them along - this way they are much less likely to complain.</p><p>You ought to try it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do this thing called " speaking to our neighbours " .
If they are being too loud we go and ask them to be quiet instead of calling the police .
Similarly , if we are having a party , we tell the neighbours and invite them along - this way they are much less likely to complain.You ought to try it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do this thing called "speaking to our neighbours".
If they are being too loud we go and ask them to be quiet instead of calling the police.
Similarly, if we are having a party, we tell the neighbours and invite them along - this way they are much less likely to complain.You ought to try it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738673</id>
	<title>Re:And If It *Had* Been a Rave...?</title>
	<author>MarkusQ</author>
	<datestamp>1247859300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Honestly, what's the justification for this nonsense? Are the local constabularies that bored? And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response? Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>It would be interesting to see if there were any political connections--local officials in this country have been known to use almost
<a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/busby-campaign-supporters-and-allies-publicly-mobilize-against-sheriffs-raid.php?ref=fpa" title="talkingpointsmemo.com">almost identical "SWAT-like" tactics</a> [talkingpointsmemo.com] to break up an opponent's fund raiser, for example.

</p><p>The "we thought it was a rave" BS would make a lot more sense as a cover for some stronger (but presently obscure) motive.

</p><p>-- MarkusQ</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , what 's the justification for this nonsense ?
Are the local constabularies that bored ?
And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response ?
Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours ?
It would be interesting to see if there were any political connections--local officials in this country have been known to use almost almost identical " SWAT-like " tactics [ talkingpointsmemo.com ] to break up an opponent 's fund raiser , for example .
The " we thought it was a rave " BS would make a lot more sense as a cover for some stronger ( but presently obscure ) motive .
-- MarkusQ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, what's the justification for this nonsense?
Are the local constabularies that bored?
And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response?
Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?
It would be interesting to see if there were any political connections--local officials in this country have been known to use almost
almost identical "SWAT-like" tactics [talkingpointsmemo.com] to break up an opponent's fund raiser, for example.
The "we thought it was a rave" BS would make a lot more sense as a cover for some stronger (but presently obscure) motive.
-- MarkusQ
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738781</id>
	<title>...ended in a rave 1 hour later?</title>
	<author>Timmy Topshelf</author>
	<datestamp>1247860620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because you're old, everyone should be old!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you 're old , everyone should be old !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you're old, everyone should be old!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747527</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>aneremite</author>
	<datestamp>1248016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the article!! It says NOTHING about these people being the same ones that held the rave. Its was the same field but not the same people. Apparently you're old enough to need your eyes checked....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the article ! !
It says NOTHING about these people being the same ones that held the rave .
Its was the same field but not the same people .
Apparently you 're old enough to need your eyes checked... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the article!!
It says NOTHING about these people being the same ones that held the rave.
Its was the same field but not the same people.
Apparently you're old enough to need your eyes checked....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742179</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1247943900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's interesting to compare and contrast the two BBC stories (12th and 17th July)
<br> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8146490.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8146490.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]
<br> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8155441.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8155441.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]
<p>
The first BBC report is unusual (especially for the BBC) in that it's significantly shorter than the other news organisations' reports, and reads almost like it's been cribbed from someone else's press release.
</p><p>
The limited info that they <i>did</i> provide appears to be slightly at odds with that of the other agencies who filed more detailed stories, as well as with their own later story, and the apparent discrepancies in the first Beeb story all seem to be more supportive of the police case.
</p><p>
So, did the BBC initially just get their information for the first story directly from the police's PR people?
</p><p>
Do a comparison. The other news service reports say that fifteen people were at the party, and the guy whose birthday it was directly quoted as stating "fifteen". They all seem to be specific about fifteen, apart from the "BBC 12th July" piece, which says that "about thirty" people turned up. Now, it's probably technically true that about thirty people turned up, but with four police cars and a riot van, half of them would have been police. Technically true, but not journalistically honest. A Beeb reporter hopefully wouldn't try to manipulate language like that, but a PR person trying to present the facts in the best possible way for their client might.

The first beeb report also says:</p><blockquote><div><p>... local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That information doesn't appear in the later report. "Premises" is a "police-speak" terminology that tends to be used in court (like "I was proceeding down the thoroughfare"), and a police spokesperson in the Mail report later talks more vaguely about earlier problems in "the area", which for all we know, might take in an entire village and its surrounding fields. Once the police were on the defensive, if there really<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//had// been previous problems at those specific "premises", you'd expect them to make a big deal of it. They didn't.
So if we discard the first, shorter Beeb report as potentially problematic and rely on the second (more considered, longer) report and the reports from the other agencies, we lose "premises" and no longer have anything to say that "this bunch" had previously done anything at all.
</p><p>
Another oddity is that the first BBC report stresses fearful local people, whereas those people are missing from the second report, which emphasises that the police were motivated to intervene by the nature of the FaceBook info. Now it might be that local people told the police about the facebook page (feasible), or it might be that local people told the police, and the police found the facebook page for themselves (less likely but still possible). But since the police have been saying that they've been running intensive preparation for finding and shutting down raves this summer:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs\_news/hi/newsid\_5279000/5279088.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs\_news/hi/newsid\_5279000/5279088.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]
, it's also possible that they've been having somebody trawl FaceBook for keywords relating to possible raves, found this entry, decided to act on it, their PR people then made up a story about "fearful locals" for the press release because it sounded good, and that later on the PR people had to backtrack when reporters started actually looking into the story.
</p><p>
If you're into the forensic dissection of news, there's another thing about the first BBC article that screams that something's wrong.
<br>It hasn't been checked by a competent news editor. Because no news editor worth their salt would have allowed that first sentence through:</p><blockquote><div><p>About 30 people had turned up at Sowton near Exeter by mid-day on Saturday afternoon</p></div></blockquote><p>
By mid-day on Saturday afternoon? "By mid-day" is by definition <i>before (and perhaps including)</i> noon, afternoon is by definition, er, <i>after</i> noon, so that sentence should be like nails scratching down a blackboard for a news editor. Okay, so twelve noon is sometimes classified as "pm", but any decent editor would have simply struck a word from the sentence, making it tighter, less ambiguous and easier to read, so that it said "by mid-day on Saturday".
</p><p>
Again, it sounds like either the writer of the first article was a newbie working without adequate editorial supervision, or they simply received a feed from the police public relations people and put it onto the site with minimal processing.
</p><p>
If you now go back and look at your characterisation of the people at the party as "notorious" for beign "a pain in the ass", and that "the locals knew what was coming"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, since that info all seems to be extrapolated from the first (problematic) BBC report, and can't be gleaned from the second report, which was written after people had started a arguing about what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//really// happened, none of the main points in your post might be true. You may have just accidentally slandered a bunch of totally respectable boring 30-something lawyers who were intending to sip some Pimms and listen to some Dire Straits before sleeping over so that they wouldn't have to drive after drinking.
</p><p>
Of course it might well be that they really <i>are</i> wild party animals<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but since neither the BBC or the police seem to be wanting to stand by the details from the first report that your interpretation is based on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I think that its more likely that someone at the police authority embroidered the truth, it slipped past the BBC news "bullshit filters", and now that proper journalists are involved, the police spokespeople have had to backtrack and come up with other justifications for what happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting to compare and contrast the two BBC stories ( 12th and 17th July ) http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8146490.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8155441.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] The first BBC report is unusual ( especially for the BBC ) in that it 's significantly shorter than the other news organisations ' reports , and reads almost like it 's been cribbed from someone else 's press release .
The limited info that they did provide appears to be slightly at odds with that of the other agencies who filed more detailed stories , as well as with their own later story , and the apparent discrepancies in the first Beeb story all seem to be more supportive of the police case .
So , did the BBC initially just get their information for the first story directly from the police 's PR people ?
Do a comparison .
The other news service reports say that fifteen people were at the party , and the guy whose birthday it was directly quoted as stating " fifteen " .
They all seem to be specific about fifteen , apart from the " BBC 12th July " piece , which says that " about thirty " people turned up .
Now , it 's probably technically true that about thirty people turned up , but with four police cars and a riot van , half of them would have been police .
Technically true , but not journalistically honest .
A Beeb reporter hopefully would n't try to manipulate language like that , but a PR person trying to present the facts in the best possible way for their client might .
The first beeb report also says : ... local people , fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises , alerted the police .
That information does n't appear in the later report .
" Premises " is a " police-speak " terminology that tends to be used in court ( like " I was proceeding down the thoroughfare " ) , and a police spokesperson in the Mail report later talks more vaguely about earlier problems in " the area " , which for all we know , might take in an entire village and its surrounding fields .
Once the police were on the defensive , if there really //had// been previous problems at those specific " premises " , you 'd expect them to make a big deal of it .
They did n't .
So if we discard the first , shorter Beeb report as potentially problematic and rely on the second ( more considered , longer ) report and the reports from the other agencies , we lose " premises " and no longer have anything to say that " this bunch " had previously done anything at all .
Another oddity is that the first BBC report stresses fearful local people , whereas those people are missing from the second report , which emphasises that the police were motivated to intervene by the nature of the FaceBook info .
Now it might be that local people told the police about the facebook page ( feasible ) , or it might be that local people told the police , and the police found the facebook page for themselves ( less likely but still possible ) .
But since the police have been saying that they 've been running intensive preparation for finding and shutting down raves this summer : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs \ _news/hi/newsid \ _5279000/5279088.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] , it 's also possible that they 've been having somebody trawl FaceBook for keywords relating to possible raves , found this entry , decided to act on it , their PR people then made up a story about " fearful locals " for the press release because it sounded good , and that later on the PR people had to backtrack when reporters started actually looking into the story .
If you 're into the forensic dissection of news , there 's another thing about the first BBC article that screams that something 's wrong .
It has n't been checked by a competent news editor .
Because no news editor worth their salt would have allowed that first sentence through : About 30 people had turned up at Sowton near Exeter by mid-day on Saturday afternoon By mid-day on Saturday afternoon ?
" By mid-day " is by definition before ( and perhaps including ) noon , afternoon is by definition , er , after noon , so that sentence should be like nails scratching down a blackboard for a news editor .
Okay , so twelve noon is sometimes classified as " pm " , but any decent editor would have simply struck a word from the sentence , making it tighter , less ambiguous and easier to read , so that it said " by mid-day on Saturday " .
Again , it sounds like either the writer of the first article was a newbie working without adequate editorial supervision , or they simply received a feed from the police public relations people and put it onto the site with minimal processing .
If you now go back and look at your characterisation of the people at the party as " notorious " for beign " a pain in the ass " , and that " the locals knew what was coming " ... well , since that info all seems to be extrapolated from the first ( problematic ) BBC report , and ca n't be gleaned from the second report , which was written after people had started a arguing about what //really// happened , none of the main points in your post might be true .
You may have just accidentally slandered a bunch of totally respectable boring 30-something lawyers who were intending to sip some Pimms and listen to some Dire Straits before sleeping over so that they would n't have to drive after drinking .
Of course it might well be that they really are wild party animals ... but since neither the BBC or the police seem to be wanting to stand by the details from the first report that your interpretation is based on ... I think that its more likely that someone at the police authority embroidered the truth , it slipped past the BBC news " bullshit filters " , and now that proper journalists are involved , the police spokespeople have had to backtrack and come up with other justifications for what happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting to compare and contrast the two BBC stories (12th and 17th July)
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8146490.stm [bbc.co.uk]
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8155441.stm [bbc.co.uk]

The first BBC report is unusual (especially for the BBC) in that it's significantly shorter than the other news organisations' reports, and reads almost like it's been cribbed from someone else's press release.
The limited info that they did provide appears to be slightly at odds with that of the other agencies who filed more detailed stories, as well as with their own later story, and the apparent discrepancies in the first Beeb story all seem to be more supportive of the police case.
So, did the BBC initially just get their information for the first story directly from the police's PR people?
Do a comparison.
The other news service reports say that fifteen people were at the party, and the guy whose birthday it was directly quoted as stating "fifteen".
They all seem to be specific about fifteen, apart from the "BBC 12th July" piece, which says that "about thirty" people turned up.
Now, it's probably technically true that about thirty people turned up, but with four police cars and a riot van, half of them would have been police.
Technically true, but not journalistically honest.
A Beeb reporter hopefully wouldn't try to manipulate language like that, but a PR person trying to present the facts in the best possible way for their client might.
The first beeb report also says:... local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police.
That information doesn't appear in the later report.
"Premises" is a "police-speak" terminology that tends to be used in court (like "I was proceeding down the thoroughfare"), and a police spokesperson in the Mail report later talks more vaguely about earlier problems in "the area", which for all we know, might take in an entire village and its surrounding fields.
Once the police were on the defensive, if there really //had// been previous problems at those specific "premises", you'd expect them to make a big deal of it.
They didn't.
So if we discard the first, shorter Beeb report as potentially problematic and rely on the second (more considered, longer) report and the reports from the other agencies, we lose "premises" and no longer have anything to say that "this bunch" had previously done anything at all.
Another oddity is that the first BBC report stresses fearful local people, whereas those people are missing from the second report, which emphasises that the police were motivated to intervene by the nature of the FaceBook info.
Now it might be that local people told the police about the facebook page (feasible), or it might be that local people told the police, and the police found the facebook page for themselves (less likely but still possible).
But since the police have been saying that they've been running intensive preparation for finding and shutting down raves this summer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs\_news/hi/newsid\_5279000/5279088.stm [bbc.co.uk]
, it's also possible that they've been having somebody trawl FaceBook for keywords relating to possible raves, found this entry, decided to act on it, their PR people then made up a story about "fearful locals" for the press release because it sounded good, and that later on the PR people had to backtrack when reporters started actually looking into the story.
If you're into the forensic dissection of news, there's another thing about the first BBC article that screams that something's wrong.
It hasn't been checked by a competent news editor.
Because no news editor worth their salt would have allowed that first sentence through:About 30 people had turned up at Sowton near Exeter by mid-day on Saturday afternoon
By mid-day on Saturday afternoon?
"By mid-day" is by definition before (and perhaps including) noon, afternoon is by definition, er, after noon, so that sentence should be like nails scratching down a blackboard for a news editor.
Okay, so twelve noon is sometimes classified as "pm", but any decent editor would have simply struck a word from the sentence, making it tighter, less ambiguous and easier to read, so that it said "by mid-day on Saturday".
Again, it sounds like either the writer of the first article was a newbie working without adequate editorial supervision, or they simply received a feed from the police public relations people and put it onto the site with minimal processing.
If you now go back and look at your characterisation of the people at the party as "notorious" for beign "a pain in the ass", and that "the locals knew what was coming" ... well, since that info all seems to be extrapolated from the first (problematic) BBC report, and can't be gleaned from the second report, which was written after people had started a arguing about what //really// happened, none of the main points in your post might be true.
You may have just accidentally slandered a bunch of totally respectable boring 30-something lawyers who were intending to sip some Pimms and listen to some Dire Straits before sleeping over so that they wouldn't have to drive after drinking.
Of course it might well be that they really are wild party animals ... but since neither the BBC or the police seem to be wanting to stand by the details from the first report that your interpretation is based on ... I think that its more likely that someone at the police authority embroidered the truth, it slipped past the BBC news "bullshit filters", and now that proper journalists are involved, the police spokespeople have had to backtrack and come up with other justifications for what happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738601</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess everyone should put all night party tags on their Facebook pages tomorrow night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess everyone should put all night party tags on their Facebook pages tomorrow night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess everyone should put all night party tags on their Facebook pages tomorrow night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28745885</id>
	<title>wtf?</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1247942820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhhhh, sorry if this is dumb, but... WTF?!  Was there a threat to UK national security?  Have the Brits gone completely bonkers?  I don't understand.  What happened to "Just don't frighten the horses?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhhh , sorry if this is dumb , but.. .
WTF ? ! Was there a threat to UK national security ?
Have the Brits gone completely bonkers ?
I do n't understand .
What happened to " Just do n't frighten the horses ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhhh, sorry if this is dumb, but...
WTF?!  Was there a threat to UK national security?
Have the Brits gone completely bonkers?
I don't understand.
What happened to "Just don't frighten the horses?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747949</id>
	<title>Good use of public funds!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248021360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently the police force in England has nothing better to do with their time than to surf facebook and then WASTE a significant amount of funding in a pyrrhic show of law "enforcement:?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the police force in England has nothing better to do with their time than to surf facebook and then WASTE a significant amount of funding in a pyrrhic show of law " enforcement : ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the police force in England has nothing better to do with their time than to surf facebook and then WASTE a significant amount of funding in a pyrrhic show of law "enforcement:?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738625</id>
	<title>Must suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247858520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must suck for those guys to live in a police state. Man am i ever glad to live in a free an democratic country.</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must suck for those guys to live in a police state .
Man am i ever glad to live in a free an democratic country.Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must suck for those guys to live in a police state.
Man am i ever glad to live in a free an democratic country.Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739421</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1247914140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Interesting law. It specifies that it applies to people regardless of if they're trespassing, so they can be used to order people off their land, as long as a superintendent of the police thinks that 2 or more people are "making preparations" to hold a rave there.</p></div><p>The alternative being for the police to stand by, have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the 15 dudes BBQing under a tent during the afternoon doesn't look much like a nighttime rave.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Except the only testimony for the "quiet barbecue" comes from the guy organising the event, and if you look at the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8146490.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">earlier version of the article</a> [bbc.co.uk] you'll find a few little snippits (such as previous events at the same premises and seizing sound equipment and that they'd already been told to get a license).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting law .
It specifies that it applies to people regardless of if they 're trespassing , so they can be used to order people off their land , as long as a superintendent of the police thinks that 2 or more people are " making preparations " to hold a rave there.The alternative being for the police to stand by , have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30 ' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.I think the 15 dudes BBQing under a tent during the afternoon does n't look much like a nighttime rave .
.Except the only testimony for the " quiet barbecue " comes from the guy organising the event , and if you look at the earlier version of the article [ bbc.co.uk ] you 'll find a few little snippits ( such as previous events at the same premises and seizing sound equipment and that they 'd already been told to get a license ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting law.
It specifies that it applies to people regardless of if they're trespassing, so they can be used to order people off their land, as long as a superintendent of the police thinks that 2 or more people are "making preparations" to hold a rave there.The alternative being for the police to stand by, have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.I think the 15 dudes BBQing under a tent during the afternoon doesn't look much like a nighttime rave.
.Except the only testimony for the "quiet barbecue" comes from the guy organising the event, and if you look at the earlier version of the article [bbc.co.uk] you'll find a few little snippits (such as previous events at the same premises and seizing sound equipment and that they'd already been told to get a license).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739583</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1247917440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night"</p><p>One interesting response to this was a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OvHLdnRI8" title="youtube.com">track by autechre</a> [youtube.com] which was written so that the beats never repeat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night " One interesting response to this was a track by autechre [ youtube.com ] which was written so that the beats never repeat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night"One interesting response to this was a track by autechre [youtube.com] which was written so that the beats never repeat</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738733</id>
	<title>$100 BILLION</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247859960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Honestly, what's the justification for this nonsense?"</i>
<br> <br>
"War on drugs" ring any bells? - it's a euphemisim for oppression.
<br> <br>
High ranking police all over the planet have built beuracratic kingdoms around the idiotic idea of declaring war on a social problem. In the US where this moronic idea came from it costs $100 billion/year to police just pot alone, yes $100 BILLION every YEAR just to stop people smoking pot. $10 billion of that goes directly to the DEA who LOBBY legislatures to keep the status quo. One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot. UK, Australia, etc, are no different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Honestly , what 's the justification for this nonsense ?
" " War on drugs " ring any bells ?
- it 's a euphemisim for oppression .
High ranking police all over the planet have built beuracratic kingdoms around the idiotic idea of declaring war on a social problem .
In the US where this moronic idea came from it costs $ 100 billion/year to police just pot alone , yes $ 100 BILLION every YEAR just to stop people smoking pot .
$ 10 billion of that goes directly to the DEA who LOBBY legislatures to keep the status quo .
One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot .
UK , Australia , etc , are no different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Honestly, what's the justification for this nonsense?
"
 
"War on drugs" ring any bells?
- it's a euphemisim for oppression.
High ranking police all over the planet have built beuracratic kingdoms around the idiotic idea of declaring war on a social problem.
In the US where this moronic idea came from it costs $100 billion/year to police just pot alone, yes $100 BILLION every YEAR just to stop people smoking pot.
$10 billion of that goes directly to the DEA who LOBBY legislatures to keep the status quo.
One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot.
UK, Australia, etc, are no different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611</id>
	<title>What a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247858220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of keeping people you know to possibly be intoxicated confined to an event all night where they can only do harm to themselves (if even), let's break these gatherings up so some of these people get intoxicated elsewhere, and have to drive home early.</p><p>Raving is not a crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of keeping people you know to possibly be intoxicated confined to an event all night where they can only do harm to themselves ( if even ) , let 's break these gatherings up so some of these people get intoxicated elsewhere , and have to drive home early.Raving is not a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of keeping people you know to possibly be intoxicated confined to an event all night where they can only do harm to themselves (if even), let's break these gatherings up so some of these people get intoxicated elsewhere, and have to drive home early.Raving is not a crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739709</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247919900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Frankly I am old enough and bitter enough to just want kids like that off my lawn, my neighboors lawn,</i></p><p>Sure - trespassing is illegal.</p><p><i>and if they are loud enough, the field next to it as well for that matter.</i></p><p>Of course - we have laws against noise disturbances.</p><p>Why didn't the police show up with their helicopters when the noise disturbances were taking place? The problem with this law is that it criminalises a party in "the field next to your neighbour's law", even when it doesn't break any laws on noise disturbances.</p><p>Where I live, there's far more disturbance from people who take drugs all night - of the alcohol and cigarettes kind - and stand around outside talking to the late hours. But that's fine. Heaven forbid a bunch of people take some pot (or have a barbecue), and play some repetitive beats in a field they own somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly I am old enough and bitter enough to just want kids like that off my lawn , my neighboors lawn,Sure - trespassing is illegal.and if they are loud enough , the field next to it as well for that matter.Of course - we have laws against noise disturbances.Why did n't the police show up with their helicopters when the noise disturbances were taking place ?
The problem with this law is that it criminalises a party in " the field next to your neighbour 's law " , even when it does n't break any laws on noise disturbances.Where I live , there 's far more disturbance from people who take drugs all night - of the alcohol and cigarettes kind - and stand around outside talking to the late hours .
But that 's fine .
Heaven forbid a bunch of people take some pot ( or have a barbecue ) , and play some repetitive beats in a field they own somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly I am old enough and bitter enough to just want kids like that off my lawn, my neighboors lawn,Sure - trespassing is illegal.and if they are loud enough, the field next to it as well for that matter.Of course - we have laws against noise disturbances.Why didn't the police show up with their helicopters when the noise disturbances were taking place?
The problem with this law is that it criminalises a party in "the field next to your neighbour's law", even when it doesn't break any laws on noise disturbances.Where I live, there's far more disturbance from people who take drugs all night - of the alcohol and cigarettes kind - and stand around outside talking to the late hours.
But that's fine.
Heaven forbid a bunch of people take some pot (or have a barbecue), and play some repetitive beats in a field they own somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>josiebgoode</author>
	<datestamp>1247860260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As reported by the <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/17/police\_raid\_birthday\_barbecue\_facebook\_invitation/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Register</a> [theregister.co.uk], police can break up a rave party under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act since 1994.  And it is not for any kind of music festivals... No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the <b>emission of a succession of repetitive beats</b> during the night".</htmltext>
<tokenext>As reported by the Register [ theregister.co.uk ] , police can break up a rave party under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act since 1994 .
And it is not for any kind of music festivals... No , no , no , only raves : " playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As reported by the Register [theregister.co.uk], police can break up a rave party under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act since 1994.
And it is not for any kind of music festivals... No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739945</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247923920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's also why rave parties organisers tried to find isolated spots where they wouldn't actually bother anybody with the noise...<br>Now whether they would or NOT do damage to, the land depends on human nature, amount of people, degree of respect etc...<br>Make's me think of a Levellers quote 'Get orf moi laaaaand!!!!'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's also why rave parties organisers tried to find isolated spots where they would n't actually bother anybody with the noise...Now whether they would or NOT do damage to , the land depends on human nature , amount of people , degree of respect etc...Make 's me think of a Levellers quote 'Get orf moi laaaaand ! ! ! !
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's also why rave parties organisers tried to find isolated spots where they wouldn't actually bother anybody with the noise...Now whether they would or NOT do damage to, the land depends on human nature, amount of people, degree of respect etc...Make's me think of a Levellers quote 'Get orf moi laaaaand!!!!
'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740109</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247926080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They *get* completely stupid? I thought that constant extreme stupidity (grunt style), was the very reason they were hired in the first place! ^^</p><p>Seriously. Add the factor that it is very hard to punish a cop for his errors, when he should be punished just as everybody else. And you got the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They * get * completely stupid ?
I thought that constant extreme stupidity ( grunt style ) , was the very reason they were hired in the first place !
^ ^ Seriously. Add the factor that it is very hard to punish a cop for his errors , when he should be punished just as everybody else .
And you got the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They *get* completely stupid?
I thought that constant extreme stupidity (grunt style), was the very reason they were hired in the first place!
^^Seriously. Add the factor that it is very hard to punish a cop for his errors, when he should be punished just as everybody else.
And you got the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739931</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1247923560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be the law that is used to deal with legitimate raves, but a 15 guest private birthday party for a 30 year old is not a fucking rave - the police should have recognized their error and apologized and left - only to come back if there was an actual legitimate disturbance.</p><p>When police abuse the public trust and act like asshole thugs who refuse to back down when they're wrong, bad things happen...Cops that pull this kind of shit contribute to hatred for all police - when in fact not all police are egotistical power hungry assholes with inferiority complexes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be the law that is used to deal with legitimate raves , but a 15 guest private birthday party for a 30 year old is not a fucking rave - the police should have recognized their error and apologized and left - only to come back if there was an actual legitimate disturbance.When police abuse the public trust and act like asshole thugs who refuse to back down when they 're wrong , bad things happen...Cops that pull this kind of shit contribute to hatred for all police - when in fact not all police are egotistical power hungry assholes with inferiority complexes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be the law that is used to deal with legitimate raves, but a 15 guest private birthday party for a 30 year old is not a fucking rave - the police should have recognized their error and apologized and left - only to come back if there was an actual legitimate disturbance.When police abuse the public trust and act like asshole thugs who refuse to back down when they're wrong, bad things happen...Cops that pull this kind of shit contribute to hatred for all police - when in fact not all police are egotistical power hungry assholes with inferiority complexes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739763</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247920860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er - maybe because the Slashdot summary was linking to more than one article, and the summary contained information from all of them? You do realise that different news reports may report different things?</p><p>TFS linked to the Register, which stated "Riot police stormed a man's 30th birthday barbecue for 15 guests because it was advertised as an "all-night" party on Facebook.". <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/facebook/5843814/Police-close-down-Facebook-barbecue-for-15-people.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">The Telegraph</a> [telegraph.co.uk] also claim <i>"police feared it was to turn into a large-scale rave prompted by the internet invitations."</i> Andrew Poole himself claimed that <i>"But they kept on insisting I had advertised it as an all-night rave on the internet."</i></p><p>They also have a quote from the police:</p><p><i>"On this occasion, we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps to stop the event."</i></p><p>So yes, the police were aware of it being advertised on the Internet.</p><p><i>Knee-jerk stupidity, that's how</i></p><p>Perhaps you should RTFA before making your own knee-jerk stupid statements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Er - maybe because the Slashdot summary was linking to more than one article , and the summary contained information from all of them ?
You do realise that different news reports may report different things ? TFS linked to the Register , which stated " Riot police stormed a man 's 30th birthday barbecue for 15 guests because it was advertised as an " all-night " party on Facebook. " .
The Telegraph [ telegraph.co.uk ] also claim " police feared it was to turn into a large-scale rave prompted by the internet invitations .
" Andrew Poole himself claimed that " But they kept on insisting I had advertised it as an all-night rave on the internet .
" They also have a quote from the police : " On this occasion , we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps to stop the event .
" So yes , the police were aware of it being advertised on the Internet.Knee-jerk stupidity , that 's howPerhaps you should RTFA before making your own knee-jerk stupid statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er - maybe because the Slashdot summary was linking to more than one article, and the summary contained information from all of them?
You do realise that different news reports may report different things?TFS linked to the Register, which stated "Riot police stormed a man's 30th birthday barbecue for 15 guests because it was advertised as an "all-night" party on Facebook.".
The Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk] also claim "police feared it was to turn into a large-scale rave prompted by the internet invitations.
" Andrew Poole himself claimed that "But they kept on insisting I had advertised it as an all-night rave on the internet.
"They also have a quote from the police:"On this occasion, we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps to stop the event.
"So yes, the police were aware of it being advertised on the Internet.Knee-jerk stupidity, that's howPerhaps you should RTFA before making your own knee-jerk stupid statements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28753039</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248026100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are certainly already laws in place to deal with people generally causing a ruckus and disturbing their neighbors.  Why are the existing laws not sufficient?  Why is a special anti-rave law needed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are certainly already laws in place to deal with people generally causing a ruckus and disturbing their neighbors .
Why are the existing laws not sufficient ?
Why is a special anti-rave law needed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are certainly already laws in place to deal with people generally causing a ruckus and disturbing their neighbors.
Why are the existing laws not sufficient?
Why is a special anti-rave law needed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28746959</id>
	<title>sheep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the uk electorate are sheep, they take no notice of politics and hang on every word the tabloids spew out. Then they elect politicians for the tribe they represent. The politicians then defend any policy they put in place be saying but people voted for us.</p><p>They do not point out that after the Thatcher era (I include major) we would have voted Hitler in to get rid of them, we are about to see the same again with zanulabour of course in the aftermath of a torie victory up and down the country the sheep will bleat.</p><p>Bhaa Bhaa<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and so it go on with the same groups in power and the sheep doing as they are told</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the uk electorate are sheep , they take no notice of politics and hang on every word the tabloids spew out .
Then they elect politicians for the tribe they represent .
The politicians then defend any policy they put in place be saying but people voted for us.They do not point out that after the Thatcher era ( I include major ) we would have voted Hitler in to get rid of them , we are about to see the same again with zanulabour of course in the aftermath of a torie victory up and down the country the sheep will bleat.Bhaa Bhaa ... and so it go on with the same groups in power and the sheep doing as they are told</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the uk electorate are sheep, they take no notice of politics and hang on every word the tabloids spew out.
Then they elect politicians for the tribe they represent.
The politicians then defend any policy they put in place be saying but people voted for us.They do not point out that after the Thatcher era (I include major) we would have voted Hitler in to get rid of them, we are about to see the same again with zanulabour of course in the aftermath of a torie victory up and down the country the sheep will bleat.Bhaa Bhaa ... and so it go on with the same groups in power and the sheep doing as they are told</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738945</id>
	<title>15 friends</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1247949120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field? Well, I'm not going to judge before all the facts are in, but it seems a little excessive. And considering that local residents had complained about raves in the area before, it seems a little suspect.</p><p>However, the fact that the police shut down the party before they had anything more than suspicion is still wrong, I think. If they had the guys assurances that it wasn't a rave, wouldn't it have been enough just to send someone back at 8PM and someone at midnight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field ?
Well , I 'm not going to judge before all the facts are in , but it seems a little excessive .
And considering that local residents had complained about raves in the area before , it seems a little suspect.However , the fact that the police shut down the party before they had anything more than suspicion is still wrong , I think .
If they had the guys assurances that it was n't a rave , would n't it have been enough just to send someone back at 8PM and someone at midnight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field?
Well, I'm not going to judge before all the facts are in, but it seems a little excessive.
And considering that local residents had complained about raves in the area before, it seems a little suspect.However, the fact that the police shut down the party before they had anything more than suspicion is still wrong, I think.
If they had the guys assurances that it wasn't a rave, wouldn't it have been enough just to send someone back at 8PM and someone at midnight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739633</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>Talrinys</author>
	<datestamp>1247918400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So being a raver, a resident DJ @ a techno club and in the top 5 of grades in school, having never done drugs or even smoked a cigarette, what does that make me?
My group of friends and fellow DJs/promoters in Copenhagen stick much more to their education, earn more in general, are much more interested in the world, and all around nicer people than the general pop listener i would meet.
Each genre has their idiots, and i'm positive that it's much more widespread for trance or hardstyle folks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So being a raver , a resident DJ @ a techno club and in the top 5 of grades in school , having never done drugs or even smoked a cigarette , what does that make me ?
My group of friends and fellow DJs/promoters in Copenhagen stick much more to their education , earn more in general , are much more interested in the world , and all around nicer people than the general pop listener i would meet .
Each genre has their idiots , and i 'm positive that it 's much more widespread for trance or hardstyle folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So being a raver, a resident DJ @ a techno club and in the top 5 of grades in school, having never done drugs or even smoked a cigarette, what does that make me?
My group of friends and fellow DJs/promoters in Copenhagen stick much more to their education, earn more in general, are much more interested in the world, and all around nicer people than the general pop listener i would meet.
Each genre has their idiots, and i'm positive that it's much more widespread for trance or hardstyle folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740081</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1247925780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the greater good! It always reminds me of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY" title="youtube.com">this Hot Fuzz moment</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the greater good !
It always reminds me of this Hot Fuzz moment [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the greater good!
It always reminds me of this Hot Fuzz moment [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739113</id>
	<title>Re:$100 BILLION</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247909160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot. </i></p><p>Really?</p><p>Who is this person? It must be awful for them to have their life ruined every 18 seconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot .
Really ? Who is this person ?
It must be awful for them to have their life ruined every 18 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot.
Really?Who is this person?
It must be awful for them to have their life ruined every 18 seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738931</id>
	<title>This just in.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247948940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>private information on Facebook</p></div><p>Idiots think putting information on internet is private.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>private information on FacebookIdiots think putting information on internet is private.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>private information on FacebookIdiots think putting information on internet is private.....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28756449</id>
	<title>Lack of Accountability?</title>
	<author>jerunamuck</author>
	<datestamp>1248105780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not really concerned that LEA is mining social web sites for intelligence.</p><p>What's really concerns me here is the lack of accountability for incompetence demonstrated here.  Yes, I expect there to be disciplinary action taken but I fear it's no more than a statement in their next performance review.  Here on the far side of the pond, if search and rescue is called out for me (even if I'm not lost) I get billed for the event.  These bills can be tens of thousands of dollars.  Perhaps we should start billing incompetent officers for the cost of their mistakes.  Yes there needs to be due process and perhaps officers that get a warrant from the courts before making these raids can be indemnified.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&lt;RANT&gt;<br>Frankly, I sick of hearing about the increasing cost of incompetence being dismissed as cost of doing law enforcement.  I'm sick of off duty cops writing some kid a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk so he can put in for 4 hours of overtime he didn't work ( yes this really happens, ask a retired cop ).  I'm sick of the men in blue being more concerned about the image of being right than they are about being correct.  Perhaps counting convictions is the wrong performance metric?<br>&lt;/RANT&gt;</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not really concerned that LEA is mining social web sites for intelligence.What 's really concerns me here is the lack of accountability for incompetence demonstrated here .
Yes , I expect there to be disciplinary action taken but I fear it 's no more than a statement in their next performance review .
Here on the far side of the pond , if search and rescue is called out for me ( even if I 'm not lost ) I get billed for the event .
These bills can be tens of thousands of dollars .
Perhaps we should start billing incompetent officers for the cost of their mistakes .
Yes there needs to be due process and perhaps officers that get a warrant from the courts before making these raids can be indemnified.Frankly , I sick of hearing about the increasing cost of incompetence being dismissed as cost of doing law enforcement .
I 'm sick of off duty cops writing some kid a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk so he can put in for 4 hours of overtime he did n't work ( yes this really happens , ask a retired cop ) .
I 'm sick of the men in blue being more concerned about the image of being right than they are about being correct .
Perhaps counting convictions is the wrong performance metric ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not really concerned that LEA is mining social web sites for intelligence.What's really concerns me here is the lack of accountability for incompetence demonstrated here.
Yes, I expect there to be disciplinary action taken but I fear it's no more than a statement in their next performance review.
Here on the far side of the pond, if search and rescue is called out for me (even if I'm not lost) I get billed for the event.
These bills can be tens of thousands of dollars.
Perhaps we should start billing incompetent officers for the cost of their mistakes.
Yes there needs to be due process and perhaps officers that get a warrant from the courts before making these raids can be indemnified.Frankly, I sick of hearing about the increasing cost of incompetence being dismissed as cost of doing law enforcement.
I'm sick of off duty cops writing some kid a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk so he can put in for 4 hours of overtime he didn't work ( yes this really happens, ask a retired cop ).
I'm sick of the men in blue being more concerned about the image of being right than they are about being correct.
Perhaps counting convictions is the wrong performance metric?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740241</id>
	<title>Police raiding BBQ's?</title>
	<author>kno3</author>
	<datestamp>1247927340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, they are really taking this obesity crisis seriously!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , they are really taking this obesity crisis seriously !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, they are really taking this obesity crisis seriously!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739499</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247915580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake..."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...in a field near my house for a complete weekend, non-stop with no reduction in the volume day or night.</p><p>Would you approve that rewording? Happened near our village a couple of times There's a contextual issue here - if the ravers want to organise a managed event in a warehouse on an industrial estate out of earshot then I'm cool with that.</p><p>Then again, in the case of the original article, the police were clearly over-reactionary asshats.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/meh - captcha was 'deafen'!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" there 's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno ( a redundancy ?
) , waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake... " ...in a field near my house for a complete weekend , non-stop with no reduction in the volume day or night.Would you approve that rewording ?
Happened near our village a couple of times There 's a contextual issue here - if the ravers want to organise a managed event in a warehouse on an industrial estate out of earshot then I 'm cool with that.Then again , in the case of the original article , the police were clearly over-reactionary asshats .
/meh - captcha was 'deafen ' ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?
), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake..." ...in a field near my house for a complete weekend, non-stop with no reduction in the volume day or night.Would you approve that rewording?
Happened near our village a couple of times There's a contextual issue here - if the ravers want to organise a managed event in a warehouse on an industrial estate out of earshot then I'm cool with that.Then again, in the case of the original article, the police were clearly over-reactionary asshats.
/meh - captcha was 'deafen'!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740279</id>
	<title>Re:Must suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247927760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We may be cheap, but we certainly aren't free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We may be cheap , but we certainly are n't free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We may be cheap, but we certainly aren't free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739897</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>PatrickThomson</author>
	<datestamp>1247923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "previous events with loud music at the same premises"</p><p>If I am a well-known troll and I show up in a thread doing the text version of cracking my knuckles and going "well, let's get busy" then yeah, ban me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " previous events with loud music at the same premises " If I am a well-known troll and I show up in a thread doing the text version of cracking my knuckles and going " well , let 's get busy " then yeah , ban me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "previous events with loud music at the same premises"If I am a well-known troll and I show up in a thread doing the text version of cracking my knuckles and going "well, let's get busy" then yeah, ban me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739495</id>
	<title>Re:And If It *Had* Been a Rave...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247915520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a late 90s hangover.  Back then people were having fun - wearing dadgy clothes (angel wings, fluffy leg warmers, glow-stick-headbands... that sort of thing); taking drugs that, rather than turning them into deranged psychopaths, caused them to smile a lot, dance and talk waaay too much; listening to music with really fast beats; and, worst of all, they were doing it on non-commercial premises, not paying entry and failing generating profit for *anyone*.  Obviously such horrible behaviour just *had* to stop, so the good ole government brought in all these great new rules and laws to rightly crush such abherant behaviour and ensure the conformity of the next generation of 9-5 wage-slave-zombies... sorry, upright citizens... who would party the right way: drowning the sorrows of there pathetic little lives in depressing but, more importantly, profit generating and well-taxed dives using expensive, legal, taxed drugs such as alcohol.</p><p>And rightly so I say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a late 90s hangover .
Back then people were having fun - wearing dadgy clothes ( angel wings , fluffy leg warmers , glow-stick-headbands... that sort of thing ) ; taking drugs that , rather than turning them into deranged psychopaths , caused them to smile a lot , dance and talk waaay too much ; listening to music with really fast beats ; and , worst of all , they were doing it on non-commercial premises , not paying entry and failing generating profit for * anyone * .
Obviously such horrible behaviour just * had * to stop , so the good ole government brought in all these great new rules and laws to rightly crush such abherant behaviour and ensure the conformity of the next generation of 9-5 wage-slave-zombies... sorry , upright citizens... who would party the right way : drowning the sorrows of there pathetic little lives in depressing but , more importantly , profit generating and well-taxed dives using expensive , legal , taxed drugs such as alcohol.And rightly so I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a late 90s hangover.
Back then people were having fun - wearing dadgy clothes (angel wings, fluffy leg warmers, glow-stick-headbands... that sort of thing); taking drugs that, rather than turning them into deranged psychopaths, caused them to smile a lot, dance and talk waaay too much; listening to music with really fast beats; and, worst of all, they were doing it on non-commercial premises, not paying entry and failing generating profit for *anyone*.
Obviously such horrible behaviour just *had* to stop, so the good ole government brought in all these great new rules and laws to rightly crush such abherant behaviour and ensure the conformity of the next generation of 9-5 wage-slave-zombies... sorry, upright citizens... who would party the right way: drowning the sorrows of there pathetic little lives in depressing but, more importantly, profit generating and well-taxed dives using expensive, legal, taxed drugs such as alcohol.And rightly so I say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28743219</id>
	<title>Oh, the irony...</title>
	<author>sourICE</author>
	<datestamp>1247909700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how as time passes on the number of people we are allowed to know in real life is continuously degraded while the number of people we hear of and speak to online continually increases. We as people are no longer allowed to exist with one another peacefully when the government imposes laws ordering us to stay confined to a set number of friends. Any large gathering of people no matter how peaceful the majority are will have it's troubles and it ultimately leads to the police imposing restrictions on the entire group as a whole. So we turn to the internet and only see real life people during forced events(work, school, military, family gatherings) and this begins to associate the real world with events that are not our choosing and the internet is associated with a life of openness and choice.</p><p>.</p><p>Then we have reports on TV about how your children are addicted to the internet(guess what, you're addicted to the TV and all of it's bullshit drama) and we wonder why? On the internet you can have as many friends as you like and you are never hassled by officials. You are free to speak your mind in most cases relatively free from harm or backlash from anyone besides some anonymous loser.</p><p>.</p><p>We are continuously scared of the real world from television news and shielded from outside influences as children, then grow up in a world where we are not supposed to congregate with more than a few people unless you are extremely wealthy, at a workplace or working for the government and we wonder why our society has gone so anti-social?</p><p>.</p><p>Granted this can not be said for everybody everywhere, but it generally stands that when you're hanging out with a very large group of friends at a private residence you are worried about it getting broken up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how as time passes on the number of people we are allowed to know in real life is continuously degraded while the number of people we hear of and speak to online continually increases .
We as people are no longer allowed to exist with one another peacefully when the government imposes laws ordering us to stay confined to a set number of friends .
Any large gathering of people no matter how peaceful the majority are will have it 's troubles and it ultimately leads to the police imposing restrictions on the entire group as a whole .
So we turn to the internet and only see real life people during forced events ( work , school , military , family gatherings ) and this begins to associate the real world with events that are not our choosing and the internet is associated with a life of openness and choice..Then we have reports on TV about how your children are addicted to the internet ( guess what , you 're addicted to the TV and all of it 's bullshit drama ) and we wonder why ?
On the internet you can have as many friends as you like and you are never hassled by officials .
You are free to speak your mind in most cases relatively free from harm or backlash from anyone besides some anonymous loser..We are continuously scared of the real world from television news and shielded from outside influences as children , then grow up in a world where we are not supposed to congregate with more than a few people unless you are extremely wealthy , at a workplace or working for the government and we wonder why our society has gone so anti-social ? .Granted this can not be said for everybody everywhere , but it generally stands that when you 're hanging out with a very large group of friends at a private residence you are worried about it getting broken up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how as time passes on the number of people we are allowed to know in real life is continuously degraded while the number of people we hear of and speak to online continually increases.
We as people are no longer allowed to exist with one another peacefully when the government imposes laws ordering us to stay confined to a set number of friends.
Any large gathering of people no matter how peaceful the majority are will have it's troubles and it ultimately leads to the police imposing restrictions on the entire group as a whole.
So we turn to the internet and only see real life people during forced events(work, school, military, family gatherings) and this begins to associate the real world with events that are not our choosing and the internet is associated with a life of openness and choice..Then we have reports on TV about how your children are addicted to the internet(guess what, you're addicted to the TV and all of it's bullshit drama) and we wonder why?
On the internet you can have as many friends as you like and you are never hassled by officials.
You are free to speak your mind in most cases relatively free from harm or backlash from anyone besides some anonymous loser..We are continuously scared of the real world from television news and shielded from outside influences as children, then grow up in a world where we are not supposed to congregate with more than a few people unless you are extremely wealthy, at a workplace or working for the government and we wonder why our society has gone so anti-social?.Granted this can not be said for everybody everywhere, but it generally stands that when you're hanging out with a very large group of friends at a private residence you are worried about it getting broken up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739481</id>
	<title>Re:And If It *Had* Been a Rave...?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247915100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DJ Ozzy in da house!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DJ Ozzy in da house !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DJ Ozzy in da house!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742271</id>
	<title>Minority Report meets TIA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247944440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   Process is important.</p><p>MAN has birthday party plans.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (Zelaya dreams of 2nd term is president of Honduras.)<br>Man POSTS plans to the internet via webpage.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (Zelaya calls for nonbinding public referendum on presidential term.)<br>Someone (or something) surveils the internet.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ( Honduran power-elite get nervous.)<br>MISINTERPRETED information leads to incorrect assessment.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (International press speculates wildly.)<br>PLANS are made to preempt the 'illegal' activity without investigation or corroboration.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (Mistakes were made.)<br>Lack of care or concern on the part of LAW ENFORCEMENT officials OVERREACTS with improper use of force.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (Michelletti led opposition order Zelaya's removal.)</p><p>Man PO'd<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (Zelaya in embarassed before the world in his pajamas.)<br>Press Contacted<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (The UN is petitioned.)<br>'Story' written &amp; posted<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (Zelaya address the OAS &amp; UN)</p><p>(to be continued)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (again, &amp; again, &amp; again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Scott McNealy was pimping when he said, "Get over it."---</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Process is important.MAN has birthday party plans .
      ( Zelaya dreams of 2nd term is president of Honduras .
) Man POSTS plans to the internet via webpage .
      ( Zelaya calls for nonbinding public referendum on presidential term .
) Someone ( or something ) surveils the internet .
      ( Honduran power-elite get nervous .
) MISINTERPRETED information leads to incorrect assessment .
      ( International press speculates wildly .
) PLANS are made to preempt the 'illegal ' activity without investigation or corroboration .
      ( Mistakes were made .
) Lack of care or concern on the part of LAW ENFORCEMENT officials OVERREACTS with improper use of force .
      ( Michelletti led opposition order Zelaya 's removal .
) Man PO 'd       ( Zelaya in embarassed before the world in his pajamas .
) Press Contacted       ( The UN is petitioned .
) 'Story ' written &amp; posted       ( Zelaya address the OAS &amp; UN ) ( to be continued )       ( again , &amp; again , &amp; again ... )       --- Scott McNealy was pimping when he said , " Get over it .
" ---</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Process is important.MAN has birthday party plans.
      (Zelaya dreams of 2nd term is president of Honduras.
)Man POSTS plans to the internet via webpage.
      (Zelaya calls for nonbinding public referendum on presidential term.
)Someone (or something) surveils the internet.
      ( Honduran power-elite get nervous.
)MISINTERPRETED information leads to incorrect assessment.
      (International press speculates wildly.
)PLANS are made to preempt the 'illegal' activity without investigation or corroboration.
      (Mistakes were made.
)Lack of care or concern on the part of LAW ENFORCEMENT officials OVERREACTS with improper use of force.
      (Michelletti led opposition order Zelaya's removal.
)Man PO'd
      (Zelaya in embarassed before the world in his pajamas.
)Press Contacted
      (The UN is petitioned.
)'Story' written &amp; posted
      (Zelaya address the OAS &amp; UN)(to be continued)
      (again, &amp; again, &amp; again ...)
      --- Scott McNealy was pimping when he said, "Get over it.
"---</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739589</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place [b]after previous events with loud music at the same premises[/b], alerted the police."</p><p>There, is that more clear to you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But local people , fearing a rave was going to take place [ b ] after previous events with loud music at the same premises [ /b ] , alerted the police .
" There , is that more clear to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place [b]after previous events with loud music at the same premises[/b], alerted the police.
"There, is that more clear to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742845</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247949300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>The root of this all is the War on <b>Some</b> Drugs.</p></div></blockquote><p><b>I am human garbage and I need to stop polluting online forums with memes that project unoriginality and snottiness.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The root of this all is the War on Some Drugs.I am human garbage and I need to stop polluting online forums with memes that project unoriginality and snottiness .
Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The root of this all is the War on Some Drugs.I am human garbage and I need to stop polluting online forums with memes that project unoriginality and snottiness.
Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741367</id>
	<title>So, no repetitive beats...</title>
	<author>FrankN</author>
	<datestamp>1247937120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time to fire up the theremin, we're gonna party!
<br> <br>

FrankN</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to fire up the theremin , we 're gon na party !
FrankN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to fire up the theremin, we're gonna party!
FrankN</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738897</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247948340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, the only thing that will probably happen in that case is the cop getting a two week paid vacation- erm, I mean suspended a couple weeks with pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , the only thing that will probably happen in that case is the cop getting a two week paid vacation- erm , I mean suspended a couple weeks with pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, the only thing that will probably happen in that case is the cop getting a two week paid vacation- erm, I mean suspended a couple weeks with pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739251</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1247911500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny and here I was thinking that the "can't read" thing applies mostly to people who pretend to be open-minded and then go on peddling their petty prejudices. But not without pretending to be sorry and then applying their last witty thrust to the core of the poor sods Thou Happens Not To Like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny and here I was thinking that the " ca n't read " thing applies mostly to people who pretend to be open-minded and then go on peddling their petty prejudices .
But not without pretending to be sorry and then applying their last witty thrust to the core of the poor sods Thou Happens Not To Like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny and here I was thinking that the "can't read" thing applies mostly to people who pretend to be open-minded and then go on peddling their petty prejudices.
But not without pretending to be sorry and then applying their last witty thrust to the core of the poor sods Thou Happens Not To Like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738881</id>
	<title>Little did they know...</title>
	<author>ipX</author>
	<datestamp>1247948220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the <tt>wtfbbq</tt> tag would have been more appropriate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the wtfbbq tag would have been more appropriate : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the wtfbbq tag would have been more appropriate :/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739699</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>berny@work</author>
	<datestamp>1247919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"sorry for any possible ravers that read this, 'though I suspect most ravers don't know how to read"</p><p>Apology not accepted, GFY.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>Actually, I have to say that I love techno music as do a number of the people that work with / for me (All IT guys / girls) it just happens that's what was coming out when I was growing up, and I love it. I keep a set of decks at home for doing occasional mixes myself. It's easy to stereotype I know, but as another posted put up here, look at anyone in their mid thirties in and early forties in the UK; and a good section of mainland Europe for that matter, and ask them if they had been out to a rave, you will usually  get a response of yes. It just comes with the territory. I have heard some of the best techno around recently, it's still evolving.</p><p>I say that sitting here listening to System Of A Down, so my music tastes are varied....</p><p>Berny</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" sorry for any possible ravers that read this , 'though I suspect most ravers do n't know how to read " Apology not accepted , GFY .
: -PActually , I have to say that I love techno music as do a number of the people that work with / for me ( All IT guys / girls ) it just happens that 's what was coming out when I was growing up , and I love it .
I keep a set of decks at home for doing occasional mixes myself .
It 's easy to stereotype I know , but as another posted put up here , look at anyone in their mid thirties in and early forties in the UK ; and a good section of mainland Europe for that matter , and ask them if they had been out to a rave , you will usually get a response of yes .
It just comes with the territory .
I have heard some of the best techno around recently , it 's still evolving.I say that sitting here listening to System Of A Down , so my music tastes are varied....Berny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"sorry for any possible ravers that read this, 'though I suspect most ravers don't know how to read"Apology not accepted, GFY.
:-PActually, I have to say that I love techno music as do a number of the people that work with / for me (All IT guys / girls) it just happens that's what was coming out when I was growing up, and I love it.
I keep a set of decks at home for doing occasional mixes myself.
It's easy to stereotype I know, but as another posted put up here, look at anyone in their mid thirties in and early forties in the UK; and a good section of mainland Europe for that matter, and ask them if they had been out to a rave, you will usually  get a response of yes.
It just comes with the territory.
I have heard some of the best techno around recently, it's still evolving.I say that sitting here listening to System Of A Down, so my music tastes are varied....Berny</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742685</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247947860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thought-crime.</p><p>Arrest people before anything happens.</p><p>What a splendid idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought-crime.Arrest people before anything happens.What a splendid idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought-crime.Arrest people before anything happens.What a splendid idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740213</id>
	<title>Re:Must suck</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247927160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You live in Switzerland? Nice! Can I come over again? I love your country!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You live in Switzerland ?
Nice ! Can I come over again ?
I love your country !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You live in Switzerland?
Nice! Can I come over again?
I love your country!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739109</id>
	<title>Safety rave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247909040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can break it up if they want to<br>They can leave your friends behind<br>'Cause your friends can rave and if they rave<br>Well they're no friends of them</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can break it up if they want toThey can leave your friends behind'Cause your friends can rave and if they raveWell they 're no friends of them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can break it up if they want toThey can leave your friends behind'Cause your friends can rave and if they raveWell they're no friends of them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637</id>
	<title>And If It *Had* Been a Rave...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247858700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, what's the justification for this nonsense?  Are the local constabularies that bored?  And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response?  Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?

<p>Did the owner of the field give informed consent for the gathering?  If so, then the police had no business being there.  Apologies are almost certainly in order.

</p><p>Schwab</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , what 's the justification for this nonsense ?
Are the local constabularies that bored ?
And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response ?
Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours ?
Did the owner of the field give informed consent for the gathering ?
If so , then the police had no business being there .
Apologies are almost certainly in order .
Schwab</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, what's the justification for this nonsense?
Are the local constabularies that bored?
And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response?
Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?
Did the owner of the field give informed consent for the gathering?
If so, then the police had no business being there.
Apologies are almost certainly in order.
Schwab</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739175</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247910300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frankly your old enough that you might as well just give up and die already.  SERIOUSLY if you can't respect others freedoms, then you are doing more harm than good, so get off my planet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly your old enough that you might as well just give up and die already .
SERIOUSLY if you ca n't respect others freedoms , then you are doing more harm than good , so get off my planet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly your old enough that you might as well just give up and die already.
SERIOUSLY if you can't respect others freedoms, then you are doing more harm than good, so get off my planet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739779</id>
	<title>Re:Criminal Justice Bill</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247921160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And of course, if they were really "illegal raves", why was a new law needed. They were legal raves criminalised by the law...</p><p>(It's a shame we don't seem to have these sorts of marches and protests over the even-increasing authoritarian laws we have now.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course , if they were really " illegal raves " , why was a new law needed .
They were legal raves criminalised by the law... ( It 's a shame we do n't seem to have these sorts of marches and protests over the even-increasing authoritarian laws we have now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course, if they were really "illegal raves", why was a new law needed.
They were legal raves criminalised by the law...(It's a shame we don't seem to have these sorts of marches and protests over the even-increasing authoritarian laws we have now.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738859</id>
	<title>C'mon big brother!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247948040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We kicked your government out of our country some 200+ years ago, maybe it's time you guys followed suit?</p><p>Love,<br>
The United States of America</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We kicked your government out of our country some 200 + years ago , maybe it 's time you guys followed suit ? Love , The United States of America</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We kicked your government out of our country some 200+ years ago, maybe it's time you guys followed suit?Love,
The United States of America</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741541</id>
	<title>Where is the privacy?</title>
	<author>Nettogrof</author>
	<datestamp>1247938740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have , and I'll never have a facebook account.

But a private event invitation sent via facebook, shoudn't be private ?

I know, facebook != privacy.  But it will be the same thing , if I sent 30 invitations email for my birthday party?

Even I don't care if everyone in the world knows that I plan a party.  But come on, if the police can find the party with facebook tag "all-night" , they are able to read that's just a BBQ party.  And their was only 15 guest that accept the invitation.


Ok let do a event :  A traffic jam party:  more than 100 person, music ( I'm sure that at least one person listen music in his car),  etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have , and I 'll never have a facebook account .
But a private event invitation sent via facebook , shoud n't be private ?
I know , facebook ! = privacy .
But it will be the same thing , if I sent 30 invitations email for my birthday party ?
Even I do n't care if everyone in the world knows that I plan a party .
But come on , if the police can find the party with facebook tag " all-night " , they are able to read that 's just a BBQ party .
And their was only 15 guest that accept the invitation .
Ok let do a event : A traffic jam party : more than 100 person , music ( I 'm sure that at least one person listen music in his car ) , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have , and I'll never have a facebook account.
But a private event invitation sent via facebook, shoudn't be private ?
I know, facebook != privacy.
But it will be the same thing , if I sent 30 invitations email for my birthday party?
Even I don't care if everyone in the world knows that I plan a party.
But come on, if the police can find the party with facebook tag "all-night" , they are able to read that's just a BBQ party.
And their was only 15 guest that accept the invitation.
Ok let do a event :  A traffic jam party:  more than 100 person, music ( I'm sure that at least one person listen music in his car),  etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28743349</id>
	<title>Hardly private information</title>
	<author>AlHunt</author>
	<datestamp>1247910960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; trawling our private information on Facebook</p><p>"advertised" on a social networking site hardly qualifies as "private information".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; trawling our private information on Facebook " advertised " on a social networking site hardly qualifies as " private information " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; trawling our private information on Facebook"advertised" on a social networking site hardly qualifies as "private information".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740599</id>
	<title>police did a good job</title>
	<author>Bigos</author>
	<datestamp>1247930640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was the farmer who owns the field I'd be happy with good job the police did. You townsfolk do not realise what damage such party can do. Just imagine lots of rubbish left by lot of drunk people on that the field. The party goers didn't think about harm that they could cause by that to farmer's animals and the amount of money and work required to repair the damage to the field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was the farmer who owns the field I 'd be happy with good job the police did .
You townsfolk do not realise what damage such party can do .
Just imagine lots of rubbish left by lot of drunk people on that the field .
The party goers did n't think about harm that they could cause by that to farmer 's animals and the amount of money and work required to repair the damage to the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was the farmer who owns the field I'd be happy with good job the police did.
You townsfolk do not realise what damage such party can do.
Just imagine lots of rubbish left by lot of drunk people on that the field.
The party goers didn't think about harm that they could cause by that to farmer's animals and the amount of money and work required to repair the damage to the field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742267</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1247944440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are multiple news stories referenced by the article, and they give slightly different accounts. <p>
The first linked BBC news article mentions fearful locals, and doesn't mention FaceBook. </p><p>
The second linked BBC news article has a police spokesperson emphasising the information that they found about the event on FaceBook as being the justification for taking action.</p><blockquote><div><p>"On this occasion, we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are multiple news stories referenced by the article , and they give slightly different accounts .
The first linked BBC news article mentions fearful locals , and does n't mention FaceBook .
The second linked BBC news article has a police spokesperson emphasising the information that they found about the event on FaceBook as being the justification for taking action .
" On this occasion , we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are multiple news stories referenced by the article, and they give slightly different accounts.
The first linked BBC news article mentions fearful locals, and doesn't mention FaceBook.
The second linked BBC news article has a police spokesperson emphasising the information that they found about the event on FaceBook as being the justification for taking action.
"On this occasion, we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28746213</id>
	<title>Re:$100 BILLION</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1248035580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I'm cool now.</p><p>I do consider it important to make the correct claims. "There are X arrests, and such arrests <b>can</b> fuck up a life" is a different statement than "there are X lives fucked up", even if X is the same number.</p><p>A bit like saying "20 shots were fired during the school shooting" and "20 people were killed".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'm cool now.I do consider it important to make the correct claims .
" There are X arrests , and such arrests can fuck up a life " is a different statement than " there are X lives fucked up " , even if X is the same number.A bit like saying " 20 shots were fired during the school shooting " and " 20 people were killed " .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'm cool now.I do consider it important to make the correct claims.
"There are X arrests, and such arrests can fuck up a life" is a different statement than "there are X lives fucked up", even if X is the same number.A bit like saying "20 shots were fired during the school shooting" and "20 people were killed".
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739303</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>dotgain</author>
	<datestamp>1247912400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed, and random people accused you of being a bank robber, just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Please, don't give them ideas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed , and random people accused you of being a bank robber , just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery ?
Please , do n't give them ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed, and random people accused you of being a bank robber, just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery?
Please, don't give them ideas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738773</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1247860500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The root of this all is the War on <b>Some</b> Drugs.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The root of this all is the War on Some Drugs.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The root of this all is the War on Some Drugs.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</id>
	<title>Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1247858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's worse, even if it was a "rave" (*gag*) it technically shouldn't have been illegal. While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity's least finest inventions there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself. Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people. The root of this all is the War on Drugs.</p><p>So it's doubly-wrong.</p><p>(sorry for any possible ravers that read this, 'though I suspect most ravers don't know how to read)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's worse , even if it was a " rave " ( * gag * ) it technically should n't have been illegal .
While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity 's least finest inventions there 's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno ( a redundancy ?
) , waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake , and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself .
Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies ; it 's not like raves are an assembly of violent people .
The root of this all is the War on Drugs.So it 's doubly-wrong .
( sorry for any possible ravers that read this , 'though I suspect most ravers do n't know how to read )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's worse, even if it was a "rave" (*gag*) it technically shouldn't have been illegal.
While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity's least finest inventions there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?
), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself.
Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people.
The root of this all is the War on Drugs.So it's doubly-wrong.
(sorry for any possible ravers that read this, 'though I suspect most ravers don't know how to read)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738979</id>
	<title>"private information on Facebook"</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1247950020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>read that again... breathe... there.... you got it, champ.</p><p>step one to being a successful "criminal": don't advertize whatever illegal stuff you're going to do...</p><p>and no, facebook is not private...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>read that again... breathe... there.... you got it , champ.step one to being a successful " criminal " : do n't advertize whatever illegal stuff you 're going to do...and no , facebook is not private.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>read that again... breathe... there.... you got it, champ.step one to being a successful "criminal": don't advertize whatever illegal stuff you're going to do...and no, facebook is not private...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738965</id>
	<title>Criminal Justice Bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247949720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably arrested under the Criminal Justice Bill.<br><br>I went on two London marches to fight against this bill 15 years ago. They were determined to stop us having free parties, "Illegal Raves" as the media called them. No conveys of more than 6 cars, no parties in fields, no freedom to enjoy life without corporate involvement. In my eyes, this is where CCTV Britain started. This was the start of anti-social laws. The nanny state.<br><br>These parties still go on though. Fuck the police.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably arrested under the Criminal Justice Bill.I went on two London marches to fight against this bill 15 years ago .
They were determined to stop us having free parties , " Illegal Raves " as the media called them .
No conveys of more than 6 cars , no parties in fields , no freedom to enjoy life without corporate involvement .
In my eyes , this is where CCTV Britain started .
This was the start of anti-social laws .
The nanny state.These parties still go on though .
Fuck the police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably arrested under the Criminal Justice Bill.I went on two London marches to fight against this bill 15 years ago.
They were determined to stop us having free parties, "Illegal Raves" as the media called them.
No conveys of more than 6 cars, no parties in fields, no freedom to enjoy life without corporate involvement.
In my eyes, this is where CCTV Britain started.
This was the start of anti-social laws.
The nanny state.These parties still go on though.
Fuck the police.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741009</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1247934120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."<br></i></p><p>Translation:  The media found one cranky guy like yourself (who also called the coppers in the first place), and decided to print "local people" instead of "local crank".</p><p>This is a minor story written by cub-reporters.  Don't mistake any "facts" presented here for anything reliable.  If you've ever <b>actually known</b> people involved in a real story reported on by the media, you'd know that a good 50\% of the "facts" of the story are completely wrong.  The major stories aren't a hell of a lot better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But local people , fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises , alerted the police .
" Translation : The media found one cranky guy like yourself ( who also called the coppers in the first place ) , and decided to print " local people " instead of " local crank " .This is a minor story written by cub-reporters .
Do n't mistake any " facts " presented here for anything reliable .
If you 've ever actually known people involved in a real story reported on by the media , you 'd know that a good 50 \ % of the " facts " of the story are completely wrong .
The major stories are n't a hell of a lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police.
"Translation:  The media found one cranky guy like yourself (who also called the coppers in the first place), and decided to print "local people" instead of "local crank".This is a minor story written by cub-reporters.
Don't mistake any "facts" presented here for anything reliable.
If you've ever actually known people involved in a real story reported on by the media, you'd know that a good 50\% of the "facts" of the story are completely wrong.
The major stories aren't a hell of a lot better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738613</id>
	<title>We are not alone!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247858280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow I find the fact that the U.K. utilizes their police force just as disproportionately to minor situations as the U.S. does.</p><p>If other nations are crazy that means that we're normal by default, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I find the fact that the U.K. utilizes their police force just as disproportionately to minor situations as the U.S. does.If other nations are crazy that means that we 're normal by default , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I find the fact that the U.K. utilizes their police force just as disproportionately to minor situations as the U.S. does.If other nations are crazy that means that we're normal by default, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740145</id>
	<title>Already been there, done that in the States</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1247926440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Used a rave as an excuse to bring in truckloads of National Guard, SWAT and local police with helicopters and tear gas as a training exercise against a rave <a href="http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/utah\_rave\_videos.html" title="whatreallyhappened.com">in Utah</a> [whatreallyhappened.com].</p><p>Sometimes I don't even think this is ecstasy hysteria.  Sometimes it seems like echoes beyond the singularity of the defense forces of the anglo world in service to the RIAA keeping ears safe from the competition of Euro-trance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Used a rave as an excuse to bring in truckloads of National Guard , SWAT and local police with helicopters and tear gas as a training exercise against a rave in Utah [ whatreallyhappened.com ] .Sometimes I do n't even think this is ecstasy hysteria .
Sometimes it seems like echoes beyond the singularity of the defense forces of the anglo world in service to the RIAA keeping ears safe from the competition of Euro-trance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Used a rave as an excuse to bring in truckloads of National Guard, SWAT and local police with helicopters and tear gas as a training exercise against a rave in Utah [whatreallyhappened.com].Sometimes I don't even think this is ecstasy hysteria.
Sometimes it seems like echoes beyond the singularity of the defense forces of the anglo world in service to the RIAA keeping ears safe from the competition of Euro-trance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742763</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247948400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So either the ravers turn down the music or the neighbours give up their quiet night.</p></div><p>or the ravers drop a few <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">MDMA</a> [wikipedia.org] tabs into their neighbours' wine and them take them along to the rave; that way nobody wants a quiet night anymore and everyone is happy; problem solved.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The law didn't come into place because YOU played techno in your yard and the neighbour complained.</p></div><p>love thy neighbour as thyself...turn up the volume.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There are laws that says you can't drill into your wall after or before a specific hour in a building that isn't standalone.</p></div><p>drill, baby, drill</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So either the ravers turn down the music or the neighbours give up their quiet night.or the ravers drop a few MDMA [ wikipedia.org ] tabs into their neighbours ' wine and them take them along to the rave ; that way nobody wants a quiet night anymore and everyone is happy ; problem solved.The law did n't come into place because YOU played techno in your yard and the neighbour complained.love thy neighbour as thyself...turn up the volume.There are laws that says you ca n't drill into your wall after or before a specific hour in a building that is n't standalone.drill , baby , drill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So either the ravers turn down the music or the neighbours give up their quiet night.or the ravers drop a few MDMA [wikipedia.org] tabs into their neighbours' wine and them take them along to the rave; that way nobody wants a quiet night anymore and everyone is happy; problem solved.The law didn't come into place because YOU played techno in your yard and the neighbour complained.love thy neighbour as thyself...turn up the volume.There are laws that says you can't drill into your wall after or before a specific hour in a building that isn't standalone.drill, baby, drill
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740281</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>digitalderbs</author>
	<datestamp>1247927760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police.</p></div><p>

that part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But local people , fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises , alerted the police .
that part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police.
that part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738893</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247948340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>this bunch were notorious around town</p></div></blockquote><p>How do you figure? The reports say "<i>after previous events [...] at the same premises</i>", not "<i>after previous events with the same people</i>".</p><p>How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed, and random people accused <b>you</b> of being a bank robber, just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this bunch were notorious around townHow do you figure ?
The reports say " after previous events [ ... ] at the same premises " , not " after previous events with the same people " .How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed , and random people accused you of being a bank robber , just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this bunch were notorious around townHow do you figure?
The reports say "after previous events [...] at the same premises", not "after previous events with the same people".How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed, and random people accused you of being a bank robber, just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741227</id>
	<title>So what if it was a fucking RAVE?</title>
	<author>PotatoHead</author>
	<datestamp>1247936040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good grief!</p><p>I think making sure a rave is safe is a good idea, after what happened to the people with the lasers a while back, but otherwise, what's the harm?</p><p>NONE, ZERO, NADA.</p><p>Between the US and UK, what the fuck is going on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good grief ! I think making sure a rave is safe is a good idea , after what happened to the people with the lasers a while back , but otherwise , what 's the harm ? NONE , ZERO , NADA.Between the US and UK , what the fuck is going on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good grief!I think making sure a rave is safe is a good idea, after what happened to the people with the lasers a while back, but otherwise, what's the harm?NONE, ZERO, NADA.Between the US and UK, what the fuck is going on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28746523</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1247999640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
What's worse, even if it was a "rave" (*gag*) it technically shouldn't have been illegal. While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity's least finest inventions there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself. Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people. The root of this all is the War on Drugs.
</i>

I take it you've never been to a proper rave/free-party then? One of humanity's finest inventions, a birthright our forefathers did in this country as part of their Pagan rituals and a part of English culture is to get loved up &amp; dance to Jungle-Tekno and Drum &amp; Bass all weekend! Besides, not everyone at raves is on MDMA or other chemicals, I know many straight-edge ravers, and others who stick to natural substances only, such as Mushrooms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's worse , even if it was a " rave " ( * gag * ) it technically should n't have been illegal .
While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity 's least finest inventions there 's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno ( a redundancy ?
) , waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake , and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself .
Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies ; it 's not like raves are an assembly of violent people .
The root of this all is the War on Drugs .
I take it you 've never been to a proper rave/free-party then ?
One of humanity 's finest inventions , a birthright our forefathers did in this country as part of their Pagan rituals and a part of English culture is to get loved up &amp; dance to Jungle-Tekno and Drum &amp; Bass all weekend !
Besides , not everyone at raves is on MDMA or other chemicals , I know many straight-edge ravers , and others who stick to natural substances only , such as Mushrooms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What's worse, even if it was a "rave" (*gag*) it technically shouldn't have been illegal.
While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity's least finest inventions there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?
), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself.
Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people.
The root of this all is the War on Drugs.
I take it you've never been to a proper rave/free-party then?
One of humanity's finest inventions, a birthright our forefathers did in this country as part of their Pagan rituals and a part of English culture is to get loved up &amp; dance to Jungle-Tekno and Drum &amp; Bass all weekend!
Besides, not everyone at raves is on MDMA or other chemicals, I know many straight-edge ravers, and others who stick to natural substances only, such as Mushrooms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28754093</id>
	<title>Creative policing</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1248085500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a classic example of how New Labour have given the police the power to make up the law as they go along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a classic example of how New Labour have given the police the power to make up the law as they go along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a classic example of how New Labour have given the police the power to make up the law as they go along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741727</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, yeah, I can believe that</title>
	<author>altek</author>
	<datestamp>1247940240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brown Noise: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian\_noise" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian\_noise</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>(not to be confused with the infamous "Brown Note": <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown\_note" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown\_note</a> [wikipedia.org] )</p><p>Pink Noise: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink\_noise" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink\_noise</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brown Noise : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian \ _noise [ wikipedia.org ] ( not to be confused with the infamous " Brown Note " : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown \ _note [ wikipedia.org ] ) Pink Noise : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink \ _noise [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brown Noise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian\_noise [wikipedia.org](not to be confused with the infamous "Brown Note": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown\_note [wikipedia.org] )Pink Noise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink\_noise [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739363</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>justinlee37</author>
	<datestamp>1247913360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a stupid way to define "rave." You're saying that if I get a hundred people together for an all-night warehouse party, but we decide to listen to smooth jazz instead of electronica, we can't be prosecuted? Sounds like a bunch of old english bastards screaming "get off my lawn" at the new generation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a stupid way to define " rave .
" You 're saying that if I get a hundred people together for an all-night warehouse party , but we decide to listen to smooth jazz instead of electronica , we ca n't be prosecuted ?
Sounds like a bunch of old english bastards screaming " get off my lawn " at the new generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a stupid way to define "rave.
" You're saying that if I get a hundred people together for an all-night warehouse party, but we decide to listen to smooth jazz instead of electronica, we can't be prosecuted?
Sounds like a bunch of old english bastards screaming "get off my lawn" at the new generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740679</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1247931180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not entirely fair is it that a local pub has to spend a fortune on sound isolation but a random group can just hold a rave anywhere, break every law that exists, not pay taxes and get away with it?</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Clearly its<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//quite// wrong that people should take part in enjoyable activities that don't generate taxable income for the government, because those activities undermine the efforts of hard-working businessmen who do pay taxes (ish). Maybe by having sex with your girlfriend, you're selfishly depriving hard-working local prostitutes and their pimps of earnings. Perhaps if you and your mates are practicing privately in a band every Wednesday round someone's house, and writing your own songs, you're selfishly depriving the music industry of the advertising revenue that they'd get if you spent that time passively watching TV or going to a movie or listening to the radio. It's not fair! And we certainly need to ban family picnics, people eating food in places that don't have paid-up restaurant licenses, unless they've paid for the picnic food to be supplied by a legitimate caterer. And we should definitely ban people growing fruit and veggies in their own back gradens and undermining the hard-working agricultural sector<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
I think that you have your priorities back-to-front. People aren't supposed to exist for the benefit of corporations and governments.
</p><p>
Raves weren't banned because they were creating a disturbance, because usually they were held miles away from anywhere, or on industrial estates. A big part of the buildup to a rave was heading a hundred miles down a stretch of unfamiliar motorway and trying to find the damned thing. The better organisers went out of their way to make sure that not only did the raves not disturb people, but that the "neighbours" had no idea that they were even happening. That's why the police had trouble finding them. If they =had= been creating a disturbance, locating them wouldn't have been an issue, and they wouldn't have needed special laws - they could have simply charged the people with disturbing the peace. They usually found that they couldn't even do the organisers for trespass, because the organisers tended to use the brilliant strategy of doing the right thing and asking permission from a farmer first.
</p><p>
Seriously. Look at an aerial photo of England and see how many fields there are. If you're a farmer out in the middle of nowhere, and some guy says that he'd like to slip you a hundred quid as a goodwill gesture in return for your agreeing that you have no objection to him and his mates using one of your empty fields for one night, and he's going to clear up any litter afterwards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's probably not too difficult to find a farmer with a suitable field who's going to say okay.
</p><p>
Certainly, the sites weren't authorised for things like fire safety, but open green grassy fields tend not to catch fire and kill people (unlike certain public buildings that are actually licensed). Okay, maybe field so corn stubble might, but you don't hold raves on those.
</p><p>
Rave organisers weren't, as you put it, "breaking every law that exists" (Nuclear proliferation? Murder? Shipping lanes?) The thing that frustrated politicians and the police was that for a lot of the rave organisers, what they were doing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//wasn't// obviously breaking laws.
</p><p>
In cases where the organisers did comply with the law, got full council authorisation, and did everything above board and legally, they still often got shut down. One police chief went so far as to make a public statement on the radio promising all rave organisers that no raves were going to be allowed to happen in his territory, legal or not. It didn't matter if a rave was safe, licensed, tax-paying, ticketed, council-registered with nobody compaining<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... his men were going to use put a stop to it. Non-negotiable.
</p><p>
Once you had police and politicians getting together to say that they'd be using uniformed officers to crack down on activities that they disapproved of even if those activities were entirely legal, then to those involved, it almost became a moral duty to keep going.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not entirely fair is it that a local pub has to spend a fortune on sound isolation but a random group can just hold a rave anywhere , break every law that exists , not pay taxes and get away with it ?
Clearly its //quite// wrong that people should take part in enjoyable activities that do n't generate taxable income for the government , because those activities undermine the efforts of hard-working businessmen who do pay taxes ( ish ) .
Maybe by having sex with your girlfriend , you 're selfishly depriving hard-working local prostitutes and their pimps of earnings .
Perhaps if you and your mates are practicing privately in a band every Wednesday round someone 's house , and writing your own songs , you 're selfishly depriving the music industry of the advertising revenue that they 'd get if you spent that time passively watching TV or going to a movie or listening to the radio .
It 's not fair !
And we certainly need to ban family picnics , people eating food in places that do n't have paid-up restaurant licenses , unless they 've paid for the picnic food to be supplied by a legitimate caterer .
And we should definitely ban people growing fruit and veggies in their own back gradens and undermining the hard-working agricultural sector .. . I think that you have your priorities back-to-front .
People are n't supposed to exist for the benefit of corporations and governments .
Raves were n't banned because they were creating a disturbance , because usually they were held miles away from anywhere , or on industrial estates .
A big part of the buildup to a rave was heading a hundred miles down a stretch of unfamiliar motorway and trying to find the damned thing .
The better organisers went out of their way to make sure that not only did the raves not disturb people , but that the " neighbours " had no idea that they were even happening .
That 's why the police had trouble finding them .
If they = had = been creating a disturbance , locating them would n't have been an issue , and they would n't have needed special laws - they could have simply charged the people with disturbing the peace .
They usually found that they could n't even do the organisers for trespass , because the organisers tended to use the brilliant strategy of doing the right thing and asking permission from a farmer first .
Seriously. Look at an aerial photo of England and see how many fields there are .
If you 're a farmer out in the middle of nowhere , and some guy says that he 'd like to slip you a hundred quid as a goodwill gesture in return for your agreeing that you have no objection to him and his mates using one of your empty fields for one night , and he 's going to clear up any litter afterwards ... it 's probably not too difficult to find a farmer with a suitable field who 's going to say okay .
Certainly , the sites were n't authorised for things like fire safety , but open green grassy fields tend not to catch fire and kill people ( unlike certain public buildings that are actually licensed ) .
Okay , maybe field so corn stubble might , but you do n't hold raves on those .
Rave organisers were n't , as you put it , " breaking every law that exists " ( Nuclear proliferation ?
Murder ? Shipping lanes ?
) The thing that frustrated politicians and the police was that for a lot of the rave organisers , what they were doing //was n't// obviously breaking laws .
In cases where the organisers did comply with the law , got full council authorisation , and did everything above board and legally , they still often got shut down .
One police chief went so far as to make a public statement on the radio promising all rave organisers that no raves were going to be allowed to happen in his territory , legal or not .
It did n't matter if a rave was safe , licensed , tax-paying , ticketed , council-registered with nobody compaining ... his men were going to use put a stop to it .
Non-negotiable . Once you had police and politicians getting together to say that they 'd be using uniformed officers to crack down on activities that they disapproved of even if those activities were entirely legal , then to those involved , it almost became a moral duty to keep going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not entirely fair is it that a local pub has to spend a fortune on sound isolation but a random group can just hold a rave anywhere, break every law that exists, not pay taxes and get away with it?
Clearly its //quite// wrong that people should take part in enjoyable activities that don't generate taxable income for the government, because those activities undermine the efforts of hard-working businessmen who do pay taxes (ish).
Maybe by having sex with your girlfriend, you're selfishly depriving hard-working local prostitutes and their pimps of earnings.
Perhaps if you and your mates are practicing privately in a band every Wednesday round someone's house, and writing your own songs, you're selfishly depriving the music industry of the advertising revenue that they'd get if you spent that time passively watching TV or going to a movie or listening to the radio.
It's not fair!
And we certainly need to ban family picnics, people eating food in places that don't have paid-up restaurant licenses, unless they've paid for the picnic food to be supplied by a legitimate caterer.
And we should definitely ban people growing fruit and veggies in their own back gradens and undermining the hard-working agricultural sector ...

I think that you have your priorities back-to-front.
People aren't supposed to exist for the benefit of corporations and governments.
Raves weren't banned because they were creating a disturbance, because usually they were held miles away from anywhere, or on industrial estates.
A big part of the buildup to a rave was heading a hundred miles down a stretch of unfamiliar motorway and trying to find the damned thing.
The better organisers went out of their way to make sure that not only did the raves not disturb people, but that the "neighbours" had no idea that they were even happening.
That's why the police had trouble finding them.
If they =had= been creating a disturbance, locating them wouldn't have been an issue, and they wouldn't have needed special laws - they could have simply charged the people with disturbing the peace.
They usually found that they couldn't even do the organisers for trespass, because the organisers tended to use the brilliant strategy of doing the right thing and asking permission from a farmer first.
Seriously. Look at an aerial photo of England and see how many fields there are.
If you're a farmer out in the middle of nowhere, and some guy says that he'd like to slip you a hundred quid as a goodwill gesture in return for your agreeing that you have no objection to him and his mates using one of your empty fields for one night, and he's going to clear up any litter afterwards ... it's probably not too difficult to find a farmer with a suitable field who's going to say okay.
Certainly, the sites weren't authorised for things like fire safety, but open green grassy fields tend not to catch fire and kill people (unlike certain public buildings that are actually licensed).
Okay, maybe field so corn stubble might, but you don't hold raves on those.
Rave organisers weren't, as you put it, "breaking every law that exists" (Nuclear proliferation?
Murder? Shipping lanes?
) The thing that frustrated politicians and the police was that for a lot of the rave organisers, what they were doing //wasn't// obviously breaking laws.
In cases where the organisers did comply with the law, got full council authorisation, and did everything above board and legally, they still often got shut down.
One police chief went so far as to make a public statement on the radio promising all rave organisers that no raves were going to be allowed to happen in his territory, legal or not.
It didn't matter if a rave was safe, licensed, tax-paying, ticketed, council-registered with nobody compaining ... his men were going to use put a stop to it.
Non-negotiable.

Once you had police and politicians getting together to say that they'd be using uniformed officers to crack down on activities that they disapproved of even if those activities were entirely legal, then to those involved, it almost became a moral duty to keep going.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740233</id>
	<title>Local paper link</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1247927280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Sowton-party-man-s-anger-police/article-1171221-detail/article.html" title="thisisexeter.co.uk">http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Sowton-party-man-s-anger-police/article-1171221-detail/article.html</a> [thisisexeter.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Sowton-party-man-s-anger-police/article-1171221-detail/article.html [ thisisexeter.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Sowton-party-man-s-anger-police/article-1171221-detail/article.html [thisisexeter.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739775</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>Leebert</author>
	<datestamp>1247921100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar thing happened to the mayor of Berwyn Heights, MD.  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p><p>oops!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar thing happened to the mayor of Berwyn Heights , MD .
http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html [ washingtonpost.com ] oops !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar thing happened to the mayor of Berwyn Heights, MD.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html [washingtonpost.com]oops!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</id>
	<title>It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1247908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You see a lot of kiddies complaining along the lines of "a rave shouldn't be illegal". But in britain, it is. Yes, really. Not concerts or parties, but raves.
</p><p>The reasons are probably that overtime raves became a problem for some and they wanted something done against them. The other side was not intrested in fighting it and so things got passed into law and voila, you got a specific type of party made illegal.
</p><p>England, believe it or not is still democracy. More so now then in the last couple of decades because it is no longer ensured who is going to win an election in a region. Safe seats aren't that safe anymore.
</p><p>If YOU don't fight for your rights, then someone else wins with their rights. The problem with raves is simple, it is the struggle between the neighbours who want a quiet night and the party people who don't. Both have rights but they can't both excersise them fully without restricting the other.
</p><p>So either the ravers turn down the music or the neighbours give up their quiet night. Ideally, both sides should work this out but as you can see on this side, working things out ain't part of human nature. The anti rave laws have come into being to deal with "illegal" events being held at random location with absolutely no care being given for the consequences. This doesn't just upset the neighbours, it upsets others in the entertainment industry. Not entirely fair is it that a local pub has to spend a fortune on sound isolation but a random group can just hold a rave anywhere, break every law that exists, not pay taxes and get away with it?
</p><p>The law didn't come into place because YOU played techno in your yard and the neighbour complained. It came into being from 1000+ parties being held in location with no fire safety, no securty, causing serious disturbances. Not just noise, but traffic and things like fights breaking out.
</p><p>The ravers suffered the public wrath and did NOT regulate themselves to fit into society. Of course, that is not a rebel thing to do but it is the thing to do if you don't want society to turn against you. Because as silly as this story is, the average voter (that is people who actually do vote, not just people who can vote) doesn't give a shit. They just see the tabloids depiction of ravers as crazed druggies, heared from someone at work how a rave is a warzone and are all in favor.
</p><p>Democracy is just another word for dictatorship of the many. The raves that got out of control created these laws, which weren't oppososed by the ravers themselves and now you got this silly situation.
</p><p>Most laws are silly, but exist because people are silly. If a lot of rave parties didn't cause such a nuisance (you could hold a rave party the same as any other concert and follow laws of fire safety, drugs laws and noise pollution) then there would be no desire to have them restricted.  There are laws that says you can't drill into your wall after or before a specific hour in a building that isn't standalone. Why? Because someone found it neccesary to drill all night in an apartment block. Well not SOMEONE. A LOT of someone's. The apartment block is actually a good example, an old flat might easily have several hundred of apartments and drilling in one sound through the entire building. If a person only drill once every 3 years, it takes less then 1000 people to have drilling going on day in day out.
</p><p>That is the reason there are rave laws and lots of others. Because without them people just can't be consider the affect their action have on others.
</p><p>Want to protest that? Then don't say "it shouldn't be illegal". You should made sure when the laws were introduced that it didn't become illegal by doing the same thing the petitioners did. Make your case and show that YOUR case benefits the greater good (gets the most people to vote for you).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You see a lot of kiddies complaining along the lines of " a rave should n't be illegal " .
But in britain , it is .
Yes , really .
Not concerts or parties , but raves .
The reasons are probably that overtime raves became a problem for some and they wanted something done against them .
The other side was not intrested in fighting it and so things got passed into law and voila , you got a specific type of party made illegal .
England , believe it or not is still democracy .
More so now then in the last couple of decades because it is no longer ensured who is going to win an election in a region .
Safe seats are n't that safe anymore .
If YOU do n't fight for your rights , then someone else wins with their rights .
The problem with raves is simple , it is the struggle between the neighbours who want a quiet night and the party people who do n't .
Both have rights but they ca n't both excersise them fully without restricting the other .
So either the ravers turn down the music or the neighbours give up their quiet night .
Ideally , both sides should work this out but as you can see on this side , working things out ai n't part of human nature .
The anti rave laws have come into being to deal with " illegal " events being held at random location with absolutely no care being given for the consequences .
This does n't just upset the neighbours , it upsets others in the entertainment industry .
Not entirely fair is it that a local pub has to spend a fortune on sound isolation but a random group can just hold a rave anywhere , break every law that exists , not pay taxes and get away with it ?
The law did n't come into place because YOU played techno in your yard and the neighbour complained .
It came into being from 1000 + parties being held in location with no fire safety , no securty , causing serious disturbances .
Not just noise , but traffic and things like fights breaking out .
The ravers suffered the public wrath and did NOT regulate themselves to fit into society .
Of course , that is not a rebel thing to do but it is the thing to do if you do n't want society to turn against you .
Because as silly as this story is , the average voter ( that is people who actually do vote , not just people who can vote ) does n't give a shit .
They just see the tabloids depiction of ravers as crazed druggies , heared from someone at work how a rave is a warzone and are all in favor .
Democracy is just another word for dictatorship of the many .
The raves that got out of control created these laws , which were n't oppososed by the ravers themselves and now you got this silly situation .
Most laws are silly , but exist because people are silly .
If a lot of rave parties did n't cause such a nuisance ( you could hold a rave party the same as any other concert and follow laws of fire safety , drugs laws and noise pollution ) then there would be no desire to have them restricted .
There are laws that says you ca n't drill into your wall after or before a specific hour in a building that is n't standalone .
Why ? Because someone found it neccesary to drill all night in an apartment block .
Well not SOMEONE .
A LOT of someone 's .
The apartment block is actually a good example , an old flat might easily have several hundred of apartments and drilling in one sound through the entire building .
If a person only drill once every 3 years , it takes less then 1000 people to have drilling going on day in day out .
That is the reason there are rave laws and lots of others .
Because without them people just ca n't be consider the affect their action have on others .
Want to protest that ?
Then do n't say " it should n't be illegal " .
You should made sure when the laws were introduced that it did n't become illegal by doing the same thing the petitioners did .
Make your case and show that YOUR case benefits the greater good ( gets the most people to vote for you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see a lot of kiddies complaining along the lines of "a rave shouldn't be illegal".
But in britain, it is.
Yes, really.
Not concerts or parties, but raves.
The reasons are probably that overtime raves became a problem for some and they wanted something done against them.
The other side was not intrested in fighting it and so things got passed into law and voila, you got a specific type of party made illegal.
England, believe it or not is still democracy.
More so now then in the last couple of decades because it is no longer ensured who is going to win an election in a region.
Safe seats aren't that safe anymore.
If YOU don't fight for your rights, then someone else wins with their rights.
The problem with raves is simple, it is the struggle between the neighbours who want a quiet night and the party people who don't.
Both have rights but they can't both excersise them fully without restricting the other.
So either the ravers turn down the music or the neighbours give up their quiet night.
Ideally, both sides should work this out but as you can see on this side, working things out ain't part of human nature.
The anti rave laws have come into being to deal with "illegal" events being held at random location with absolutely no care being given for the consequences.
This doesn't just upset the neighbours, it upsets others in the entertainment industry.
Not entirely fair is it that a local pub has to spend a fortune on sound isolation but a random group can just hold a rave anywhere, break every law that exists, not pay taxes and get away with it?
The law didn't come into place because YOU played techno in your yard and the neighbour complained.
It came into being from 1000+ parties being held in location with no fire safety, no securty, causing serious disturbances.
Not just noise, but traffic and things like fights breaking out.
The ravers suffered the public wrath and did NOT regulate themselves to fit into society.
Of course, that is not a rebel thing to do but it is the thing to do if you don't want society to turn against you.
Because as silly as this story is, the average voter (that is people who actually do vote, not just people who can vote) doesn't give a shit.
They just see the tabloids depiction of ravers as crazed druggies, heared from someone at work how a rave is a warzone and are all in favor.
Democracy is just another word for dictatorship of the many.
The raves that got out of control created these laws, which weren't oppososed by the ravers themselves and now you got this silly situation.
Most laws are silly, but exist because people are silly.
If a lot of rave parties didn't cause such a nuisance (you could hold a rave party the same as any other concert and follow laws of fire safety, drugs laws and noise pollution) then there would be no desire to have them restricted.
There are laws that says you can't drill into your wall after or before a specific hour in a building that isn't standalone.
Why? Because someone found it neccesary to drill all night in an apartment block.
Well not SOMEONE.
A LOT of someone's.
The apartment block is actually a good example, an old flat might easily have several hundred of apartments and drilling in one sound through the entire building.
If a person only drill once every 3 years, it takes less then 1000 people to have drilling going on day in day out.
That is the reason there are rave laws and lots of others.
Because without them people just can't be consider the affect their action have on others.
Want to protest that?
Then don't say "it shouldn't be illegal".
You should made sure when the laws were introduced that it didn't become illegal by doing the same thing the petitioners did.
Make your case and show that YOUR case benefits the greater good (gets the most people to vote for you).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28743915</id>
	<title>Re:Must suck</title>
	<author>dword</author>
	<datestamp>1247915940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 Geek for "Oh, wait..." humour</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Geek for " Oh , wait... " humour</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Geek for "Oh, wait..." humour</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739451</id>
	<title>rights ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247914680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nothing like having a Bill of Rights to keep you protected at times like this.  Oh, wait.... you UK folks need to get ON that !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing like having a Bill of Rights to keep you protected at times like this .
Oh , wait.... you UK folks need to get ON that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing like having a Bill of Rights to keep you protected at times like this.
Oh, wait.... you UK folks need to get ON that !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738789</id>
	<title>Sure, yeah, I can believe that</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1247860680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I have neighbors who do the whole "BBQ" thing. They like to stay up "barbecuing" until about 4:30 a.m., and one of them in particular likes to rap an entire song's worth of memorized rap lyrics in a loud monotone for several minutes at a time.<br> <br>Now, I don't want camouflaged police showing up, but when I call the cops and these guys demand to know "which neighbor was it?" and STILL don't shut up after the cops are gone, I have to think that somebody with a Facebook account and a field is probably driving his neighbors FREAKING insane.<br> <br>Thank goodness for my linux box and synths that can play a nice loud PSHHHHHHTTTT sound, brown or pink as you like it. (Had to work linux in there somehow)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I have neighbors who do the whole " BBQ " thing .
They like to stay up " barbecuing " until about 4 : 30 a.m. , and one of them in particular likes to rap an entire song 's worth of memorized rap lyrics in a loud monotone for several minutes at a time .
Now , I do n't want camouflaged police showing up , but when I call the cops and these guys demand to know " which neighbor was it ?
" and STILL do n't shut up after the cops are gone , I have to think that somebody with a Facebook account and a field is probably driving his neighbors FREAKING insane .
Thank goodness for my linux box and synths that can play a nice loud PSHHHHHHTTTT sound , brown or pink as you like it .
( Had to work linux in there somehow )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I have neighbors who do the whole "BBQ" thing.
They like to stay up "barbecuing" until about 4:30 a.m., and one of them in particular likes to rap an entire song's worth of memorized rap lyrics in a loud monotone for several minutes at a time.
Now, I don't want camouflaged police showing up, but when I call the cops and these guys demand to know "which neighbor was it?
" and STILL don't shut up after the cops are gone, I have to think that somebody with a Facebook account and a field is probably driving his neighbors FREAKING insane.
Thank goodness for my linux box and synths that can play a nice loud PSHHHHHHTTTT sound, brown or pink as you like it.
(Had to work linux in there somehow)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741349</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>coastwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1247936940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does - thats why they wrote it in intentionally general terms. Its designed to prevent dancing which happens to be associated with drug taking, often illegal drugs. Makes you think of the Medieval Church though when phrased in that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does - thats why they wrote it in intentionally general terms .
Its designed to prevent dancing which happens to be associated with drug taking , often illegal drugs .
Makes you think of the Medieval Church though when phrased in that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does - thats why they wrote it in intentionally general terms.
Its designed to prevent dancing which happens to be associated with drug taking, often illegal drugs.
Makes you think of the Medieval Church though when phrased in that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740435</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247929260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weren't apposed?! They fucking well were!!<br>I went on several marches and physically battled with the police over it. Ravers did reject the laws in the loudest terms, it's wankers like you who just sat on the sidelines passing "intelligent comment" who let the bill pass into law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't apposed ? !
They fucking well were !
! I went on several marches and physically battled with the police over it .
Ravers did reject the laws in the loudest terms , it 's wankers like you who just sat on the sidelines passing " intelligent comment " who let the bill pass into law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weren't apposed?!
They fucking well were!
!I went on several marches and physically battled with the police over it.
Ravers did reject the laws in the loudest terms, it's wankers like you who just sat on the sidelines passing "intelligent comment" who let the bill pass into law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</id>
	<title>Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247859780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly I am old enough and bitter enough to just want kids like that off my lawn, my neighboors lawn, and if they are loud enough, the field next to it as well for that matter.</p><p> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/england/devon/8146490.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">From BBC news</a> [bbc.co.uk] - "But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."</p><p>In other words, this bunch were notorious around town for partying all through the night, playing loud music and generally being a pain in the ass to everybody else. They may have been just barbequeing when the police showed up, but the locals knew what was comming and decided enough was enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly I am old enough and bitter enough to just want kids like that off my lawn , my neighboors lawn , and if they are loud enough , the field next to it as well for that matter .
From BBC news [ bbc.co.uk ] - " But local people , fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises , alerted the police .
" In other words , this bunch were notorious around town for partying all through the night , playing loud music and generally being a pain in the ass to everybody else .
They may have been just barbequeing when the police showed up , but the locals knew what was comming and decided enough was enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly I am old enough and bitter enough to just want kids like that off my lawn, my neighboors lawn, and if they are loud enough, the field next to it as well for that matter.
From BBC news [bbc.co.uk] - "But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police.
"In other words, this bunch were notorious around town for partying all through the night, playing loud music and generally being a pain in the ass to everybody else.
They may have been just barbequeing when the police showed up, but the locals knew what was comming and decided enough was enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741881</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA - misleading summary</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1247941320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um.. what book by Orwell?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um.. what book by Orwell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.. what book by Orwell?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739813</id>
	<title>RTFA - perfectly correct summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247921640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You RTFA. Whilst the locals may have also reported it, the police made it clear that:</p><p><i>"On this occasion, we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps."</i></p><p>It's unclear what happened first - perhaps it was reported, then they searched for it, or perhaps both happened coincidentally, but the articles linked, and many other media sources, are reporting the Facebook angle here.</p><p>The Register also use the word "dispatched", so blame them if you like - it's not a problem of not RTFA (the only one who didn't read the article is you). The BBC use the word "deployed". I'd argue that both terms are accurate, even if the helicopter had also been on a previous job. Note that it still cost the police &pound;200, so <i>your</i> comment is misleading to suggest that the helicopter merely looked as it was passing back on a normal route. The police still had to divert resources of the helicopter, at a cost of &pound;200, so "dispatch" is perfectly reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You RTFA .
Whilst the locals may have also reported it , the police made it clear that : " On this occasion , we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps .
" It 's unclear what happened first - perhaps it was reported , then they searched for it , or perhaps both happened coincidentally , but the articles linked , and many other media sources , are reporting the Facebook angle here.The Register also use the word " dispatched " , so blame them if you like - it 's not a problem of not RTFA ( the only one who did n't read the article is you ) .
The BBC use the word " deployed " .
I 'd argue that both terms are accurate , even if the helicopter had also been on a previous job .
Note that it still cost the police   200 , so your comment is misleading to suggest that the helicopter merely looked as it was passing back on a normal route .
The police still had to divert resources of the helicopter , at a cost of   200 , so " dispatch " is perfectly reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You RTFA.
Whilst the locals may have also reported it, the police made it clear that:"On this occasion, we were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party and it was therefore necessary to take the appropriate steps.
"It's unclear what happened first - perhaps it was reported, then they searched for it, or perhaps both happened coincidentally, but the articles linked, and many other media sources, are reporting the Facebook angle here.The Register also use the word "dispatched", so blame them if you like - it's not a problem of not RTFA (the only one who didn't read the article is you).
The BBC use the word "deployed".
I'd argue that both terms are accurate, even if the helicopter had also been on a previous job.
Note that it still cost the police £200, so your comment is misleading to suggest that the helicopter merely looked as it was passing back on a normal route.
The police still had to divert resources of the helicopter, at a cost of £200, so "dispatch" is perfectly reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739233</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1247911260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, talk about bad summary. How does: "Locals feared a rave was to take place at Sowton, near Exeter, on Saturday and called the police" get transmogrified in the Slashdot summary into:</p><blockquote><div><p>Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals</p></div></blockquote><p>Knee-jerk stupidity, that's how - rather like apparently displayed by the police in this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , talk about bad summary .
How does : " Locals feared a rave was to take place at Sowton , near Exeter , on Saturday and called the police " get transmogrified in the Slashdot summary into : Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminalsKnee-jerk stupidity , that 's how - rather like apparently displayed by the police in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, talk about bad summary.
How does: "Locals feared a rave was to take place at Sowton, near Exeter, on Saturday and called the police" get transmogrified in the Slashdot summary into:Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminalsKnee-jerk stupidity, that's how - rather like apparently displayed by the police in this case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247948400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From BBC news [bbc.co.uk] - "But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."</p><p>In other words, this bunch were notorious around town for partying all through the night, playing loud music and generally being a pain in the ass to everybody else. They may have been just barbequeing when the police showed up, but the locals knew what was comming and decided enough was enough.</p></div><p>Where did you get that they were "notorious around town" from? I don't see mentioned anywhere that the "bunch" were notorious around town for causing trouble. All I see is that a bunch of locals decided that they'd contact police. A bunch of locals giving police "information" is not reason enough for the police to respond in the way they did. Heck, if YOU lived in my neighbourhood I just might be tempted to get me and my friends to make up stories about YOU and get the police to raid your house. How would you like that? Not very much I am guessing.</p><p>In case you don't understand what I just said, let me put it in another way. Lets just say I have a bunch of friends here on slashdot and that I got together with them to accuse you of being a troll. All of us (me and my friends) will agree and email the slashdot admins that you're a troll. Upon hearing this, the admins revoke your account and ban you. How would this be right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From BBC news [ bbc.co.uk ] - " But local people , fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises , alerted the police .
" In other words , this bunch were notorious around town for partying all through the night , playing loud music and generally being a pain in the ass to everybody else .
They may have been just barbequeing when the police showed up , but the locals knew what was comming and decided enough was enough.Where did you get that they were " notorious around town " from ?
I do n't see mentioned anywhere that the " bunch " were notorious around town for causing trouble .
All I see is that a bunch of locals decided that they 'd contact police .
A bunch of locals giving police " information " is not reason enough for the police to respond in the way they did .
Heck , if YOU lived in my neighbourhood I just might be tempted to get me and my friends to make up stories about YOU and get the police to raid your house .
How would you like that ?
Not very much I am guessing.In case you do n't understand what I just said , let me put it in another way .
Lets just say I have a bunch of friends here on slashdot and that I got together with them to accuse you of being a troll .
All of us ( me and my friends ) will agree and email the slashdot admins that you 're a troll .
Upon hearing this , the admins revoke your account and ban you .
How would this be right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From BBC news [bbc.co.uk] - "But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police.
"In other words, this bunch were notorious around town for partying all through the night, playing loud music and generally being a pain in the ass to everybody else.
They may have been just barbequeing when the police showed up, but the locals knew what was comming and decided enough was enough.Where did you get that they were "notorious around town" from?
I don't see mentioned anywhere that the "bunch" were notorious around town for causing trouble.
All I see is that a bunch of locals decided that they'd contact police.
A bunch of locals giving police "information" is not reason enough for the police to respond in the way they did.
Heck, if YOU lived in my neighbourhood I just might be tempted to get me and my friends to make up stories about YOU and get the police to raid your house.
How would you like that?
Not very much I am guessing.In case you don't understand what I just said, let me put it in another way.
Lets just say I have a bunch of friends here on slashdot and that I got together with them to accuse you of being a troll.
All of us (me and my friends) will agree and email the slashdot admins that you're a troll.
Upon hearing this, the admins revoke your account and ban you.
How would this be right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741459</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247938020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why dont you kill yourself<br>old bitter fart like you make us, old hacker who like to party, ostracized</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why dont you kill yourselfold bitter fart like you make us , old hacker who like to party , ostracized</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why dont you kill yourselfold bitter fart like you make us, old hacker who like to party, ostracized</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28744509</id>
	<title>obligatory</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1247924460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>shitty techno (a redundancy?)</p></div><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/411/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/411/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>shitty techno ( a redundancy ?
) http : //xkcd.com/411/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shitty techno (a redundancy?
) http://xkcd.com/411/ [xkcd.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747599</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, yeah, I can believe that</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1248017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that can play a nice loud PSHHHHHHTTTT sound</p></div><p>You should be careful there. At least 1000 RIAA songs have that sound somewhere, so they could sue you. (Had to work the RIAA in there somehow)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that can play a nice loud PSHHHHHHTTTT soundYou should be careful there .
At least 1000 RIAA songs have that sound somewhere , so they could sue you .
( Had to work the RIAA in there somehow )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that can play a nice loud PSHHHHHHTTTT soundYou should be careful there.
At least 1000 RIAA songs have that sound somewhere, so they could sue you.
(Had to work the RIAA in there somehow)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739323</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247912700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>shitty techno (a redundancy?)</p></div><p>The word you're looking for is "tautology".</p><p>But no, it's not one. 99\% of all techno is crap, but then 99\% of everything is crap. There's still people like Richard D. James (better known as Aphex Twin) and so on who arguably produce good music.</p><p>And no, I'm not a raver, or into techno.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>shitty techno ( a redundancy ?
) The word you 're looking for is " tautology " .But no , it 's not one .
99 \ % of all techno is crap , but then 99 \ % of everything is crap .
There 's still people like Richard D. James ( better known as Aphex Twin ) and so on who arguably produce good music.And no , I 'm not a raver , or into techno .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shitty techno (a redundancy?
)The word you're looking for is "tautology".But no, it's not one.
99\% of all techno is crap, but then 99\% of everything is crap.
There's still people like Richard D. James (better known as Aphex Twin) and so on who arguably produce good music.And no, I'm not a raver, or into techno.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739253</id>
	<title>Re:$100 BILLION</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1247911620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot</p></div><p>As much as I think the "war on drugs" is a dumbfuck idea, I do question your numbers. Summed up to the average life expectancy that would mean ~131 million americans suffer this fate sometime during their lifetime. Which strikes me as kind of out of proportion.</p><p>You've probably taken the number of arrests and added the "life ruined" part to make your point, but if memory serves correctly, a large part of these arrests are second, third, etc. offenses, and another large part doesn't lead to anything as bad as a ruined life. It's certainly not a pleasure trip, but you're doing your case no favour by spreading easily disproven "facts".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking potAs much as I think the " war on drugs " is a dumbfuck idea , I do question your numbers .
Summed up to the average life expectancy that would mean ~ 131 million americans suffer this fate sometime during their lifetime .
Which strikes me as kind of out of proportion.You 've probably taken the number of arrests and added the " life ruined " part to make your point , but if memory serves correctly , a large part of these arrests are second , third , etc .
offenses , and another large part does n't lead to anything as bad as a ruined life .
It 's certainly not a pleasure trip , but you 're doing your case no favour by spreading easily disproven " facts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking potAs much as I think the "war on drugs" is a dumbfuck idea, I do question your numbers.
Summed up to the average life expectancy that would mean ~131 million americans suffer this fate sometime during their lifetime.
Which strikes me as kind of out of proportion.You've probably taken the number of arrests and added the "life ruined" part to make your point, but if memory serves correctly, a large part of these arrests are second, third, etc.
offenses, and another large part doesn't lead to anything as bad as a ruined life.
It's certainly not a pleasure trip, but you're doing your case no favour by spreading easily disproven "facts".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738813</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Aeternitas827</author>
	<datestamp>1247947320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."</p></div><p>Ok, so they may have gotten a little rowdy in the past; send patrols by to make sure things stay calm, and break it up after if it starts getting out of hand.  Go up and ask questions a bit, make your presence known, to make sure it stays under control.  There are ways of controlling a bad situation without much fuss, and without eliminating the possible bad situation. <br> <br>This was just plain horrid reactionary behavior that points out flaws in laws that, while have good intentions, allow for abuse and make people despise them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But local people , fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises , alerted the police .
" Ok , so they may have gotten a little rowdy in the past ; send patrols by to make sure things stay calm , and break it up after if it starts getting out of hand .
Go up and ask questions a bit , make your presence known , to make sure it stays under control .
There are ways of controlling a bad situation without much fuss , and without eliminating the possible bad situation .
This was just plain horrid reactionary behavior that points out flaws in laws that , while have good intentions , allow for abuse and make people despise them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police.
"Ok, so they may have gotten a little rowdy in the past; send patrols by to make sure things stay calm, and break it up after if it starts getting out of hand.
Go up and ask questions a bit, make your presence known, to make sure it stays under control.
There are ways of controlling a bad situation without much fuss, and without eliminating the possible bad situation.
This was just plain horrid reactionary behavior that points out flaws in laws that, while have good intentions, allow for abuse and make people despise them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28754943</id>
	<title>Re:15 friends</title>
	<author>kannibal\_klown</author>
	<datestamp>1248096600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field? Well, I'm not going to judge before all the facts are in, but it seems a little excessive.</p></div><p>Renting one kind of makes sense.</p><p>At a party, particularly at night, you'd want some sort of music.</p><p>It's outside, so do you really want to bring your home sound system?  What if it rains? what if it falls?</p><p>Heck I don't even have a sound system, merely my PC setup as well as my TV system so i wouldn't have anything to bring.</p><p>The most someone would probably want to lug around of their own is a little boom box type of stereo but those aren't really going to do much in an open field with 17+ people chatting away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field ?
Well , I 'm not going to judge before all the facts are in , but it seems a little excessive.Renting one kind of makes sense.At a party , particularly at night , you 'd want some sort of music.It 's outside , so do you really want to bring your home sound system ?
What if it rains ?
what if it falls ? Heck I do n't even have a sound system , merely my PC setup as well as my TV system so i would n't have anything to bring.The most someone would probably want to lug around of their own is a little boom box type of stereo but those are n't really going to do much in an open field with 17 + people chatting away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field?
Well, I'm not going to judge before all the facts are in, but it seems a little excessive.Renting one kind of makes sense.At a party, particularly at night, you'd want some sort of music.It's outside, so do you really want to bring your home sound system?
What if it rains?
what if it falls?Heck I don't even have a sound system, merely my PC setup as well as my TV system so i wouldn't have anything to bring.The most someone would probably want to lug around of their own is a little boom box type of stereo but those aren't really going to do much in an open field with 17+ people chatting away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741779</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Ummite</author>
	<datestamp>1247940660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's exactly the same thing that happens on wikipedia with Jean-Pierre Petit, astrophysicist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's exactly the same thing that happens on wikipedia with Jean-Pierre Petit , astrophysicist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's exactly the same thing that happens on wikipedia with Jean-Pierre Petit, astrophysicist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741263</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>coastwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1247936280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The root of this all is the War on untaxed Drugs.</p><p>Fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The root of this all is the War on untaxed Drugs.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The root of this all is the War on untaxed Drugs.Fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740973</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that what the police would have thought an otherwise totally insignificant event (bar their apparent desire to try out their swat gear) made an article in the BBC news, reeks of a PR cover-up.</p><p>It's press release brevity doubly so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that what the police would have thought an otherwise totally insignificant event ( bar their apparent desire to try out their swat gear ) made an article in the BBC news , reeks of a PR cover-up.It 's press release brevity doubly so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that what the police would have thought an otherwise totally insignificant event (bar their apparent desire to try out their swat gear) made an article in the BBC news, reeks of a PR cover-up.It's press release brevity doubly so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738999</id>
	<title>This is what happens...</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1247950320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what happens when you throw money at police to "fight crime" (drugs, prostitution, violence, whatever) and then tie their hands in apprehending criminals (eg. violence, coercion, and so on). The police get bored and start going after stupid things like this, while the rates for violent crime sky-rocket (as they have in Britain since the 1980s).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you throw money at police to " fight crime " ( drugs , prostitution , violence , whatever ) and then tie their hands in apprehending criminals ( eg .
violence , coercion , and so on ) .
The police get bored and start going after stupid things like this , while the rates for violent crime sky-rocket ( as they have in Britain since the 1980s ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you throw money at police to "fight crime" (drugs, prostitution, violence, whatever) and then tie their hands in apprehending criminals (eg.
violence, coercion, and so on).
The police get bored and start going after stupid things like this, while the rates for violent crime sky-rocket (as they have in Britain since the 1980s).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739177</id>
	<title>In the USA they use military police to do this...</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1247910300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxgdzOdaNtM" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com]  - in the USA they use police that look like the military, the whole guns and armour thing to break up their parties... so looks like its the same both sides of the pond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check this [ youtube.com ] - in the USA they use police that look like the military , the whole guns and armour thing to break up their parties... so looks like its the same both sides of the pond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check this [youtube.com]  - in the USA they use police that look like the military, the whole guns and armour thing to break up their parties... so looks like its the same both sides of the pond.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28744267</id>
	<title>How is this a problem?</title>
	<author>koinu</author>
	<datestamp>1247920500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't understand is... what's the problem with a rave party? Doesn't the police have anything to do? Like catching criminals or something like this?</p><p>I don't see any problem with a few hundred people dancing and having fun together. Isn't it what the fucking life is for? To have some fun.. to actually LIVE A BIT?</p><p>People are cattle... not more for the whole bunch of idiotic politicians and their stupid cops who obviously don't see a need to use a brain anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is... what 's the problem with a rave party ?
Does n't the police have anything to do ?
Like catching criminals or something like this ? I do n't see any problem with a few hundred people dancing and having fun together .
Is n't it what the fucking life is for ?
To have some fun.. to actually LIVE A BIT ? People are cattle... not more for the whole bunch of idiotic politicians and their stupid cops who obviously do n't see a need to use a brain anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is... what's the problem with a rave party?
Doesn't the police have anything to do?
Like catching criminals or something like this?I don't see any problem with a few hundred people dancing and having fun together.
Isn't it what the fucking life is for?
To have some fun.. to actually LIVE A BIT?People are cattle... not more for the whole bunch of idiotic politicians and their stupid cops who obviously don't see a need to use a brain anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739457</id>
	<title>Re:And If It *Had* Been a Rave...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247914740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screamfields 2009!</p><p>DJ Bin Laden feat. Alan Qaeda &amp; Tal E. Ban</p><p>Spinning phat beats all night!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screamfields 2009 ! DJ Bin Laden feat .
Alan Qaeda &amp; Tal E. BanSpinning phat beats all night !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screamfields 2009!DJ Bin Laden feat.
Alan Qaeda &amp; Tal E. BanSpinning phat beats all night!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739467</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1247914920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed, and random people accused you of being a bank robber, just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery?</p></div><p>It depends: was I wearing a ski mask and carrying a large sack with "swag" written on it? Should the police have discretely asked me whether the big lump under my camouflage jacket was a shotgun (or if I was just pleased to see them) before sending for backup?
</p><p>Or, in this case, was the "sound system" seized a 100W ghetto blaster or a professional PA setup the size of a truck? The BBC fail to relate this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed , and random people accused you of being a bank robber , just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery ? It depends : was I wearing a ski mask and carrying a large sack with " swag " written on it ?
Should the police have discretely asked me whether the big lump under my camouflage jacket was a shotgun ( or if I was just pleased to see them ) before sending for backup ?
Or , in this case , was the " sound system " seized a 100W ghetto blaster or a professional PA setup the size of a truck ?
The BBC fail to relate this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed, and random people accused you of being a bank robber, just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery?It depends: was I wearing a ski mask and carrying a large sack with "swag" written on it?
Should the police have discretely asked me whether the big lump under my camouflage jacket was a shotgun (or if I was just pleased to see them) before sending for backup?
Or, in this case, was the "sound system" seized a 100W ghetto blaster or a professional PA setup the size of a truck?
The BBC fail to relate this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739691</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247919600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most groups, or perceived groups, are much closer to the average population than you think. And you need to get out more, by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most groups , or perceived groups , are much closer to the average population than you think .
And you need to get out more , by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most groups, or perceived groups, are much closer to the average population than you think.
And you need to get out more, by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>xdotx</author>
	<datestamp>1247949420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Raving is not a crime.</p></div><p>TFA:
"[...] section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which grants police powers to remove persons attending or preparing for a "rave" (defined as playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats," during the night)."

<br> <br>
Well, apparently it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Raving is not a crime.TFA : " [ ... ] section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 , which grants police powers to remove persons attending or preparing for a " rave " ( defined as playing amplified music " wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats , " during the night ) .
" Well , apparently it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raving is not a crime.TFA:
"[...] section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which grants police powers to remove persons attending or preparing for a "rave" (defined as playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats," during the night).
"

 
Well, apparently it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738943</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>iron-kurton</author>
	<datestamp>1247949060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just in shock that "emission of a succession of repetitive beats" doesn't actually include rock (beatles, stones), punk (sex pistols, the clash), metal (iron maiden, judas priest), and just about any music to have deep roots in Britain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just in shock that " emission of a succession of repetitive beats " does n't actually include rock ( beatles , stones ) , punk ( sex pistols , the clash ) , metal ( iron maiden , judas priest ) , and just about any music to have deep roots in Britain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just in shock that "emission of a succession of repetitive beats" doesn't actually include rock (beatles, stones), punk (sex pistols, the clash), metal (iron maiden, judas priest), and just about any music to have deep roots in Britain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Datamonstar</author>
	<datestamp>1247858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Raves are illegal in the UK? Amazing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Raves are illegal in the UK ?
Amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raves are illegal in the UK?
Amazing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739191</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA - misleading summary</title>
	<author>anthony.vo</author>
	<datestamp>1247910420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you explain the whole "police had full-on camouflage trousers on and body-armour" deal then? BBC (YOUR newspaper) said four cruisers, and a RIOT van arrived after the police helicopter watched fifteen people grilling and eating.  This was in a private field and nothing illegal was happening.  Instead, they took drastic measures by controlling people to stop a "potential" crime from happening.  Kinda like in that one book by Orwell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you explain the whole " police had full-on camouflage trousers on and body-armour " deal then ?
BBC ( YOUR newspaper ) said four cruisers , and a RIOT van arrived after the police helicopter watched fifteen people grilling and eating .
This was in a private field and nothing illegal was happening .
Instead , they took drastic measures by controlling people to stop a " potential " crime from happening .
Kinda like in that one book by Orwell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you explain the whole "police had full-on camouflage trousers on and body-armour" deal then?
BBC (YOUR newspaper) said four cruisers, and a RIOT van arrived after the police helicopter watched fifteen people grilling and eating.
This was in a private field and nothing illegal was happening.
Instead, they took drastic measures by controlling people to stop a "potential" crime from happening.
Kinda like in that one book by Orwell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738889</id>
	<title>At least not everyone was disappeared by way of...</title>
	<author>D4C5CE</author>
	<datestamp>1247948280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/" title="imdb.com">blackbagging</a> [imdb.com] this time, but wait what T.H.E.Y. may have in store for some 11/5 soon.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-/<blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123673&amp;cid=10385533" title="slashdot.org">[W]hen there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Remember, remember that Diesel commercial:<br>
"If we put all (30-year) young people in jail today, we will have no criminals tomorrow!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...blackbagging [ imdb.com ] this time , but wait what T.H.E.Y .
may have in store for some 11/5 soon .
; -/ [ W ] hen there are n't enough criminals , one makes them .
[ slashdot.org ] Remember , remember that Diesel commercial : " If we put all ( 30-year ) young people in jail today , we will have no criminals tomorrow !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...blackbagging [imdb.com] this time, but wait what T.H.E.Y.
may have in store for some 11/5 soon.
;-/ [W]hen there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
[slashdot.org] 
Remember, remember that Diesel commercial:
"If we put all (30-year) young people in jail today, we will have no criminals tomorrow!
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747577</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1248017100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They would ban alcohol and tobacco as well, but they're just too popular. Every politician knows that you demonize the fringes, not the mainstream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would ban alcohol and tobacco as well , but they 're just too popular .
Every politician knows that you demonize the fringes , not the mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would ban alcohol and tobacco as well, but they're just too popular.
Every politician knows that you demonize the fringes, not the mainstream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738967</id>
	<title>England Prevails</title>
	<author>SeanBlader</author>
	<datestamp>1247949780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this one of those "England Prevails" moments? Or a "God save the Queen" one?

I'm confused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this one of those " England Prevails " moments ?
Or a " God save the Queen " one ?
I 'm confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this one of those "England Prevails" moments?
Or a "God save the Queen" one?
I'm confused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739149</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1247909760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a moral panic in the late 80s, mostly because of perceived drug usage at unlicensed raves.</p><p>To be fair, there was also a public safety issue - large crowds gathering with no fire precautions, marshalling, etc.</p><p>Anyhow, the govt. response was the ridiculous wording in the Criminal Justice Act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a moral panic in the late 80s , mostly because of perceived drug usage at unlicensed raves.To be fair , there was also a public safety issue - large crowds gathering with no fire precautions , marshalling , etc.Anyhow , the govt .
response was the ridiculous wording in the Criminal Justice Act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a moral panic in the late 80s, mostly because of perceived drug usage at unlicensed raves.To be fair, there was also a public safety issue - large crowds gathering with no fire precautions, marshalling, etc.Anyhow, the govt.
response was the ridiculous wording in the Criminal Justice Act.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740601</id>
	<title>News for Nerds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247930640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>UK Police <strong>RAID</strong> Party After Seeing "All-Night" Tag On Facebook</p></div></blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>UK Police RAID Party After Seeing " All-Night " Tag On FacebookThere , fixed that for you , /. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UK Police RAID Party After Seeing "All-Night" Tag On FacebookThere, fixed that for you, /..
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739839</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1247922060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The alternative being for the police to stand by, have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.</i></p><p>That would be terrible!  The next thing you know somebody is going to suggest that in order to arrest somebody for shoplifting you need to wait until they actually put something into their pocket, as opposed to arresting them when they look at an item on the shelf in the wrong way.</p><p>I think that as a general principle you can't arrest people for committing a crime unless there is actually some evidence that a crime is at least being planned.  I don't think a BBQ grill and a 10 m^2 tent counts.</p><p>Sure, if they had a truck with 30' speaker enclosures that they were unloading I'd say they at least had a case.</p><p>Unless there is some law in the UK that states you can't have an assembly of 15 people in a field (which it sounds like they were not trespassing on), I don't see how there can be any grounds to break things up.  Sure, maybe there have been raves in that field before, but unless they were linked to the individuals in question I can't see how anything like this is justified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The alternative being for the police to stand by , have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30 ' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.That would be terrible !
The next thing you know somebody is going to suggest that in order to arrest somebody for shoplifting you need to wait until they actually put something into their pocket , as opposed to arresting them when they look at an item on the shelf in the wrong way.I think that as a general principle you ca n't arrest people for committing a crime unless there is actually some evidence that a crime is at least being planned .
I do n't think a BBQ grill and a 10 m ^ 2 tent counts.Sure , if they had a truck with 30 ' speaker enclosures that they were unloading I 'd say they at least had a case.Unless there is some law in the UK that states you ca n't have an assembly of 15 people in a field ( which it sounds like they were not trespassing on ) , I do n't see how there can be any grounds to break things up .
Sure , maybe there have been raves in that field before , but unless they were linked to the individuals in question I ca n't see how anything like this is justified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alternative being for the police to stand by, have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.That would be terrible!
The next thing you know somebody is going to suggest that in order to arrest somebody for shoplifting you need to wait until they actually put something into their pocket, as opposed to arresting them when they look at an item on the shelf in the wrong way.I think that as a general principle you can't arrest people for committing a crime unless there is actually some evidence that a crime is at least being planned.
I don't think a BBQ grill and a 10 m^2 tent counts.Sure, if they had a truck with 30' speaker enclosures that they were unloading I'd say they at least had a case.Unless there is some law in the UK that states you can't have an assembly of 15 people in a field (which it sounds like they were not trespassing on), I don't see how there can be any grounds to break things up.
Sure, maybe there have been raves in that field before, but unless they were linked to the individuals in question I can't see how anything like this is justified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739131</id>
	<title>Re:And If It *Had* Been a Rave...?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1247909520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response? Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?</p> </div><p>To paraphrase for the modern day, "when you have a nice new shiny expensive hammer, all problems tend to look like nails."</p><p>Seriously, that sort of response is the result of the increasing militarization of the police in almost all 1st world countries.  Because of fear-mongering and patronizing politicians that want to appear to be "tough on crime" police departments are getting all kinds of funding for over-the-top military training and equipment (simultaneously ignoring the pedestrian stuff that actually cuts down crime like simply putting more cops on the beat).</p><p>Since the situations that actually require that sort of a response are so few and far between it is inevitable that it gets applied to cases where it is unnecessary and even ludicrous.  Fortunately nobody was killed this time, but as part of this same "tough on crime" stance, oversight of the police seems to be consistently weakend such that when someone innocent is killed it is ultimately shrugged off as the police followed "proper procedure" and it was just an unfortunate accident - with no significant reduction or revision in the militarized procedures that are the scapegoat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response ?
Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours ?
To paraphrase for the modern day , " when you have a nice new shiny expensive hammer , all problems tend to look like nails .
" Seriously , that sort of response is the result of the increasing militarization of the police in almost all 1st world countries .
Because of fear-mongering and patronizing politicians that want to appear to be " tough on crime " police departments are getting all kinds of funding for over-the-top military training and equipment ( simultaneously ignoring the pedestrian stuff that actually cuts down crime like simply putting more cops on the beat ) .Since the situations that actually require that sort of a response are so few and far between it is inevitable that it gets applied to cases where it is unnecessary and even ludicrous .
Fortunately nobody was killed this time , but as part of this same " tough on crime " stance , oversight of the police seems to be consistently weakend such that when someone innocent is killed it is ultimately shrugged off as the police followed " proper procedure " and it was just an unfortunate accident - with no significant reduction or revision in the militarized procedures that are the scapegoat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response?
Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?
To paraphrase for the modern day, "when you have a nice new shiny expensive hammer, all problems tend to look like nails.
"Seriously, that sort of response is the result of the increasing militarization of the police in almost all 1st world countries.
Because of fear-mongering and patronizing politicians that want to appear to be "tough on crime" police departments are getting all kinds of funding for over-the-top military training and equipment (simultaneously ignoring the pedestrian stuff that actually cuts down crime like simply putting more cops on the beat).Since the situations that actually require that sort of a response are so few and far between it is inevitable that it gets applied to cases where it is unnecessary and even ludicrous.
Fortunately nobody was killed this time, but as part of this same "tough on crime" stance, oversight of the police seems to be consistently weakend such that when someone innocent is killed it is ultimately shrugged off as the police followed "proper procedure" and it was just an unfortunate accident - with no significant reduction or revision in the militarized procedures that are the scapegoat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740523</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247930040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Democracy is just another word for dictatorship of the many.</p></div></blockquote><p>That word doesn't mean what you think it means.<br> <br>Democracy is not a dictatorship of the many at all, it's more like a dictatorship <i>for</i> the many in that a democracy is a government of the people for the people.  For the majority of the people.  A democracy will not protect the minority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is just another word for dictatorship of the many.That word does n't mean what you think it means .
Democracy is not a dictatorship of the many at all , it 's more like a dictatorship for the many in that a democracy is a government of the people for the people .
For the majority of the people .
A democracy will not protect the minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy is just another word for dictatorship of the many.That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Democracy is not a dictatorship of the many at all, it's more like a dictatorship for the many in that a democracy is a government of the people for the people.
For the majority of the people.
A democracy will not protect the minority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741911</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, yeah, I can believe that</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1247941620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but you need to take my comment at its face value. I said I turn up my own noise; that's to drown out the neighbors. That's my solution in the end, which is even MORE polite than "speaking" to them.<br> <br>When I call the cops - which is perfectly fine to do, mind you - it is because in my estimation, it would neither be safe nor wise for me to do what you call "speaking" to them, which makes it sound so normal and safe when in fact it is not. The fact that you really WEREN'T here to see it happen and are posting A/C is really "speaking" to me, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but you need to take my comment at its face value .
I said I turn up my own noise ; that 's to drown out the neighbors .
That 's my solution in the end , which is even MORE polite than " speaking " to them .
When I call the cops - which is perfectly fine to do , mind you - it is because in my estimation , it would neither be safe nor wise for me to do what you call " speaking " to them , which makes it sound so normal and safe when in fact it is not .
The fact that you really WERE N'T here to see it happen and are posting A/C is really " speaking " to me , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but you need to take my comment at its face value.
I said I turn up my own noise; that's to drown out the neighbors.
That's my solution in the end, which is even MORE polite than "speaking" to them.
When I call the cops - which is perfectly fine to do, mind you - it is because in my estimation, it would neither be safe nor wise for me to do what you call "speaking" to them, which makes it sound so normal and safe when in fact it is not.
The fact that you really WEREN'T here to see it happen and are posting A/C is really "speaking" to me, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740683</id>
	<title>Re:$100 BILLION</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247931240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just a statistic I heard somewhere. There are <a href="http://www.mpp.org/search/search.jsp" title="mpp.org">about 800,000 arrests per year</a> [mpp.org], (say) 75yr life expectancy, gives 60 million, that's 60 million too many. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g\_M-H6qOAsc" title="youtube.com">A conviction for dope can fuck up your life</a> [youtube.com], if you are not sent to to prison for life on possesion of 2oz, you can still lose your farm, house, or they can take your kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just a statistic I heard somewhere .
There are about 800,000 arrests per year [ mpp.org ] , ( say ) 75yr life expectancy , gives 60 million , that 's 60 million too many .
A conviction for dope can fuck up your life [ youtube.com ] , if you are not sent to to prison for life on possesion of 2oz , you can still lose your farm , house , or they can take your kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just a statistic I heard somewhere.
There are about 800,000 arrests per year [mpp.org], (say) 75yr life expectancy, gives 60 million, that's 60 million too many.
A conviction for dope can fuck up your life [youtube.com], if you are not sent to to prison for life on possesion of 2oz, you can still lose your farm, house, or they can take your kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739973</id>
	<title>Anyone care to explain...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247924280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how this is even close to be thinkable as being legal?<br>I mean, in simple words: Who is the one who got hurt here?<br>Because if nobody is, and nobody could be, then this whole thing by itself is illegal. (Because the police clearly wrecked the night for those 15 people.)<br>The UK gets more and more like 1984. Raids before a "crime" even happened. Surveillance. Harrassment by the police. Etc, etc, etc.<br>And apparently, the threshold for real riots because of this, is far from reached, is it?<br>How far are you from a revolution up there? (Remember to not let your feeling on this be influenced by the "they are stronger" fear. Because in fact you are always at least ten times more people, and not only therefore always stronger.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how this is even close to be thinkable as being legal ? I mean , in simple words : Who is the one who got hurt here ? Because if nobody is , and nobody could be , then this whole thing by itself is illegal .
( Because the police clearly wrecked the night for those 15 people .
) The UK gets more and more like 1984 .
Raids before a " crime " even happened .
Surveillance. Harrassment by the police .
Etc , etc , etc.And apparently , the threshold for real riots because of this , is far from reached , is it ? How far are you from a revolution up there ?
( Remember to not let your feeling on this be influenced by the " they are stronger " fear .
Because in fact you are always at least ten times more people , and not only therefore always stronger .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how this is even close to be thinkable as being legal?I mean, in simple words: Who is the one who got hurt here?Because if nobody is, and nobody could be, then this whole thing by itself is illegal.
(Because the police clearly wrecked the night for those 15 people.
)The UK gets more and more like 1984.
Raids before a "crime" even happened.
Surveillance. Harrassment by the police.
Etc, etc, etc.And apparently, the threshold for real riots because of this, is far from reached, is it?How far are you from a revolution up there?
(Remember to not let your feeling on this be influenced by the "they are stronger" fear.
Because in fact you are always at least ten times more people, and not only therefore always stronger.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247858640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     For some reason police squads seem to get completely, over the edge, stupid on an all too regular basis. And it is not just in the UK. In Miami Florida we had a police raid in which the cops simply got the wrong address. In the middle of night they knocked down the front door of a home and tossed the sleeping couple up against a wall and then one of the cops tore off the female residents top and began playing with her teats while making racial remarks. It just happens that the home owner in question was a minister in a substantial church and the naked teats that were being fondled by the cop belonged to the reverend's  wife. OOOOPPPPPS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason police squads seem to get completely , over the edge , stupid on an all too regular basis .
And it is not just in the UK .
In Miami Florida we had a police raid in which the cops simply got the wrong address .
In the middle of night they knocked down the front door of a home and tossed the sleeping couple up against a wall and then one of the cops tore off the female residents top and began playing with her teats while making racial remarks .
It just happens that the home owner in question was a minister in a substantial church and the naked teats that were being fondled by the cop belonged to the reverend 's wife .
OOOOPPPPPS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     For some reason police squads seem to get completely, over the edge, stupid on an all too regular basis.
And it is not just in the UK.
In Miami Florida we had a police raid in which the cops simply got the wrong address.
In the middle of night they knocked down the front door of a home and tossed the sleeping couple up against a wall and then one of the cops tore off the female residents top and began playing with her teats while making racial remarks.
It just happens that the home owner in question was a minister in a substantial church and the naked teats that were being fondled by the cop belonged to the reverend's  wife.
OOOOPPPPPS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742407</id>
	<title>Private information??? Bah!</title>
	<author>Toone\_Town</author>
	<datestamp>1247945580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals"...

I always thought that if it was on Facebook, it wasn't "private"...

Be careful what you post, people...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals " .. . I always thought that if it was on Facebook , it was n't " private " .. . Be careful what you post , people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals"...

I always thought that if it was on Facebook, it wasn't "private"...

Be careful what you post, people...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741077</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247934660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The alternative being for the police to stand by, have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, it's inconvenient for the cops to actually wait for the law is broken, so they should be able to arrest for pre-crime.</p><p>What if the organizers brought only music \_without\_ a beat (weird, but possible)?  What if they intended to stop playing the music before it became night (legal)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The alternative being for the police to stand by , have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30 ' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.Yeah , it 's inconvenient for the cops to actually wait for the law is broken , so they should be able to arrest for pre-crime.What if the organizers brought only music \ _without \ _ a beat ( weird , but possible ) ?
What if they intended to stop playing the music before it became night ( legal ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alternative being for the police to stand by, have a coffee and a doughnut while the organisers assemble the 30' high speaker silos and wait until there are 200 ravers on the site before intervening.Yeah, it's inconvenient for the cops to actually wait for the law is broken, so they should be able to arrest for pre-crime.What if the organizers brought only music \_without\_ a beat (weird, but possible)?
What if they intended to stop playing the music before it became night (legal)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738737</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>oblivionboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247860020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, don't mod him up -- the guys a troll through and through. Just substitute whatever music you listen to (heavy metal, jazz, etc) and see if you'd like what he's saying about you. Think about it -- you're one step away from becoming Digg, if you give him a +1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , do n't mod him up -- the guys a troll through and through .
Just substitute whatever music you listen to ( heavy metal , jazz , etc ) and see if you 'd like what he 's saying about you .
Think about it -- you 're one step away from becoming Digg , if you give him a + 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, don't mod him up -- the guys a troll through and through.
Just substitute whatever music you listen to (heavy metal, jazz, etc) and see if you'd like what he's saying about you.
Think about it -- you're one step away from becoming Digg, if you give him a +1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28745907</id>
	<title>Re:15 friends</title>
	<author>Brianwa</author>
	<datestamp>1247943180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've never done this?  We normally host them indoors around here because it rains a lot, but it's the same thing.  I've been hosting several small dance parties a year just in my living room, and I have passed the tradition on to some of my friends as well.  Occasionally we have slightly larger ones in a local church.  No harm done, just a small social gathering.  They happen all the time and no one notices because they normally don't cause any problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've never done this ?
We normally host them indoors around here because it rains a lot , but it 's the same thing .
I 've been hosting several small dance parties a year just in my living room , and I have passed the tradition on to some of my friends as well .
Occasionally we have slightly larger ones in a local church .
No harm done , just a small social gathering .
They happen all the time and no one notices because they normally do n't cause any problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've never done this?
We normally host them indoors around here because it rains a lot, but it's the same thing.
I've been hosting several small dance parties a year just in my living room, and I have passed the tradition on to some of my friends as well.
Occasionally we have slightly larger ones in a local church.
No harm done, just a small social gathering.
They happen all the time and no one notices because they normally don't cause any problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738895</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1247948340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night".</p><p>Interesting law. It specifies that it applies to people regardless of if they're trespassing, so they can be used to order people off their land, as long as a superintendent of the police thinks that 2 or more people are "making preparations" to hold a rave there.</p><p>If they don't leave their own land, a constable can arrest them without a warrant.</p><p>Crazy times.</p><p>However, it does define a rave as a nighttime party of 100 or more people, and I think the 15 dudes BBQing under a tent during the afternoon doesn't look much like a nighttime rave. The police were acting against the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; No , no , no , only raves : " playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night " .Interesting law .
It specifies that it applies to people regardless of if they 're trespassing , so they can be used to order people off their land , as long as a superintendent of the police thinks that 2 or more people are " making preparations " to hold a rave there.If they do n't leave their own land , a constable can arrest them without a warrant.Crazy times.However , it does define a rave as a nighttime party of 100 or more people , and I think the 15 dudes BBQing under a tent during the afternoon does n't look much like a nighttime rave .
The police were acting against the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night".Interesting law.
It specifies that it applies to people regardless of if they're trespassing, so they can be used to order people off their land, as long as a superintendent of the police thinks that 2 or more people are "making preparations" to hold a rave there.If they don't leave their own land, a constable can arrest them without a warrant.Crazy times.However, it does define a rave as a nighttime party of 100 or more people, and I think the 15 dudes BBQing under a tent during the afternoon doesn't look much like a nighttime rave.
The police were acting against the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740055</id>
	<title>Re:15 friends</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1247925420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field? Well, I'm not going to judge before all the facts are in, but it seems a little excessive. And considering that local residents had complained about raves in the area before, it seems a little suspect.</i></p><p>The irony is that he would have probably had less issues had he simply put on the music on maximum in his back yard, until 11pm. What they got up to would have been the same, except for the location. This is what is ridiculous about this whole law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field ?
Well , I 'm not going to judge before all the facts are in , but it seems a little excessive .
And considering that local residents had complained about raves in the area before , it seems a little suspect.The irony is that he would have probably had less issues had he simply put on the music on maximum in his back yard , until 11pm .
What they got up to would have been the same , except for the location .
This is what is ridiculous about this whole law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He'd rented a sound system for 17 friends in a field?
Well, I'm not going to judge before all the facts are in, but it seems a little excessive.
And considering that local residents had complained about raves in the area before, it seems a little suspect.The irony is that he would have probably had less issues had he simply put on the music on maximum in his back yard, until 11pm.
What they got up to would have been the same, except for the location.
This is what is ridiculous about this whole law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740453</id>
	<title>Re:Criminal Justice Bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247929380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The police should enforce to law, not make the law. You should say fuck to your honorable members of parliament over this.</p><p>Oh and smart mayors would have a way to let them organize the parties at a location where they don't hinder the non-ravers. There is so little reason to use a conflict model to resolve these issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The police should enforce to law , not make the law .
You should say fuck to your honorable members of parliament over this.Oh and smart mayors would have a way to let them organize the parties at a location where they do n't hinder the non-ravers .
There is so little reason to use a conflict model to resolve these issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The police should enforce to law, not make the law.
You should say fuck to your honorable members of parliament over this.Oh and smart mayors would have a way to let them organize the parties at a location where they don't hinder the non-ravers.
There is so little reason to use a conflict model to resolve these issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738971</id>
	<title>Facebook != private</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247949900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>|<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... private information on Facebook<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Are you new to the internet? Since when is anything posted on facebook "private"??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>| ... private information on Facebook ...Are you new to the internet ?
Since when is anything posted on facebook " private " ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>| ... private information on Facebook ...Are you new to the internet?
Since when is anything posted on facebook "private"?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739935</id>
	<title>Re:$100 BILLION</title>
	<author>ebaykal</author>
	<datestamp>1247923740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, there's other things like the National Drug Information Center, and the ICDE, but their total budget is penny change, maybe $0.5B or so.

I love hyperbole as much as the next guy, but seriously, being off by two orders of magnitude is just ignorant. <a href="http://www.marankiizle.com/" title="marankiizle.com" rel="nofollow">Ahmet Maranki</a> [marankiizle.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , there 's other things like the National Drug Information Center , and the ICDE , but their total budget is penny change , maybe $ 0.5B or so .
I love hyperbole as much as the next guy , but seriously , being off by two orders of magnitude is just ignorant .
Ahmet Maranki [ marankiizle.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, there's other things like the National Drug Information Center, and the ICDE, but their total budget is penny change, maybe $0.5B or so.
I love hyperbole as much as the next guy, but seriously, being off by two orders of magnitude is just ignorant.
Ahmet Maranki [marankiizle.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739355</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247913180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a "rave" (defined as playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a <b>succession of repetitive beats</b>," during the night).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>What if they aren't playing trance music?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a " rave " ( defined as playing amplified music " wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats , " during the night ) .
What if they are n't playing trance music ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a "rave" (defined as playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats," during the night).
What if they aren't playing trance music?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739683</id>
	<title>We have a complicated problem here</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247919420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On one hand, we have a government that is entirely too willing to "Control and Defend" (what ever happened to "serve and protect"?) and on the other hand, we have short-sighted people who are all too willing to request and expect such things from government.</p><p>It was "the locals" who contacted the authorities to have this birthday party cancelled according to the articles.  (I wonder how much we can trust the articles to actually be telling the truth in this matter?)  If this is true, then "we have only ourselves to blame" in that we are begging government to protect us from just about everything.</p><p>No amount of any single thing will back this problem out.  Soccer moms and elderly don't give a rat's ass about freedom and self expression.  They want the world to change for them, not the other way around.  And I have to admit that I have my own "the world offends me" perspective from time to time... especially when I am driving and the person in the passing lane is moving too slow and I get blocked in by two or more drivers who don't seem to notice or care that they are impeding traffic.  (There are those moments when I actually wish I could slap a police light on my car, whip out a badge and a gun and get crazy on their asses... but at just about that moment, I remember that this is exactly why I don't own any guns -- I might use them!  And frankly, I know I'd have much to regret if I ever did.)  I can identify with the world offending me in any case, but here's what I do about it:</p><p>I try, as often as possible, that in order to protect my own rights, I have to make allowances for and respect the rights of others and that [especially] includes the right to be DIFFERENT.  I think that somehow, the world of people at large has forgotten that when you try to take the rights of "some people" away, you invariably harm the rights of ALL people.  Perhaps I am showing my age, but there was a time when we taught this sort of wisdom in schools... civics or social studies... not sure what they might be called today, but it seems pretty obvious to me that people of my age, older and younger either never had such classes or didn't learn from them.</p><p>But here I sit with a real problem.  Because I am in the clear minority in this position as are many slashdotters who probably agree with me.  On this issue, the need to see that rights are to be protected and respected for ALL or NONE, I am a member of a minority group.  The rest of the people don't understand or even care about their rights and freedoms.  I want the world to change for me... but really, for us all... but primarily, for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , we have a government that is entirely too willing to " Control and Defend " ( what ever happened to " serve and protect " ?
) and on the other hand , we have short-sighted people who are all too willing to request and expect such things from government.It was " the locals " who contacted the authorities to have this birthday party cancelled according to the articles .
( I wonder how much we can trust the articles to actually be telling the truth in this matter ?
) If this is true , then " we have only ourselves to blame " in that we are begging government to protect us from just about everything.No amount of any single thing will back this problem out .
Soccer moms and elderly do n't give a rat 's ass about freedom and self expression .
They want the world to change for them , not the other way around .
And I have to admit that I have my own " the world offends me " perspective from time to time... especially when I am driving and the person in the passing lane is moving too slow and I get blocked in by two or more drivers who do n't seem to notice or care that they are impeding traffic .
( There are those moments when I actually wish I could slap a police light on my car , whip out a badge and a gun and get crazy on their asses... but at just about that moment , I remember that this is exactly why I do n't own any guns -- I might use them !
And frankly , I know I 'd have much to regret if I ever did .
) I can identify with the world offending me in any case , but here 's what I do about it : I try , as often as possible , that in order to protect my own rights , I have to make allowances for and respect the rights of others and that [ especially ] includes the right to be DIFFERENT .
I think that somehow , the world of people at large has forgotten that when you try to take the rights of " some people " away , you invariably harm the rights of ALL people .
Perhaps I am showing my age , but there was a time when we taught this sort of wisdom in schools... civics or social studies... not sure what they might be called today , but it seems pretty obvious to me that people of my age , older and younger either never had such classes or did n't learn from them.But here I sit with a real problem .
Because I am in the clear minority in this position as are many slashdotters who probably agree with me .
On this issue , the need to see that rights are to be protected and respected for ALL or NONE , I am a member of a minority group .
The rest of the people do n't understand or even care about their rights and freedoms .
I want the world to change for me... but really , for us all... but primarily , for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, we have a government that is entirely too willing to "Control and Defend" (what ever happened to "serve and protect"?
) and on the other hand, we have short-sighted people who are all too willing to request and expect such things from government.It was "the locals" who contacted the authorities to have this birthday party cancelled according to the articles.
(I wonder how much we can trust the articles to actually be telling the truth in this matter?
)  If this is true, then "we have only ourselves to blame" in that we are begging government to protect us from just about everything.No amount of any single thing will back this problem out.
Soccer moms and elderly don't give a rat's ass about freedom and self expression.
They want the world to change for them, not the other way around.
And I have to admit that I have my own "the world offends me" perspective from time to time... especially when I am driving and the person in the passing lane is moving too slow and I get blocked in by two or more drivers who don't seem to notice or care that they are impeding traffic.
(There are those moments when I actually wish I could slap a police light on my car, whip out a badge and a gun and get crazy on their asses... but at just about that moment, I remember that this is exactly why I don't own any guns -- I might use them!
And frankly, I know I'd have much to regret if I ever did.
)  I can identify with the world offending me in any case, but here's what I do about it:I try, as often as possible, that in order to protect my own rights, I have to make allowances for and respect the rights of others and that [especially] includes the right to be DIFFERENT.
I think that somehow, the world of people at large has forgotten that when you try to take the rights of "some people" away, you invariably harm the rights of ALL people.
Perhaps I am showing my age, but there was a time when we taught this sort of wisdom in schools... civics or social studies... not sure what they might be called today, but it seems pretty obvious to me that people of my age, older and younger either never had such classes or didn't learn from them.But here I sit with a real problem.
Because I am in the clear minority in this position as are many slashdotters who probably agree with me.
On this issue, the need to see that rights are to be protected and respected for ALL or NONE, I am a member of a minority group.
The rest of the people don't understand or even care about their rights and freedoms.
I want the world to change for me... but really, for us all... but primarily, for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739015</id>
	<title>RTFA - misleading summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247950620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) The police didn't scour facebook - locals did, saw it, and reported it as a rave.<br> <br>
2) The helicopter was out anyway, and they just asked the helicopter to fly over the site to really check if there was a party on its way back<br> <br>
It was <b>not</b> police scouring facebook and dispatching a helicopter.
<br> <br>It embarrasses and annoys me that this happened in my own country, which I do love dearly, but I wont let the usual anti-UK/US/Australia facebook crowd exaggerate it further.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The police did n't scour facebook - locals did , saw it , and reported it as a rave .
2 ) The helicopter was out anyway , and they just asked the helicopter to fly over the site to really check if there was a party on its way back It was not police scouring facebook and dispatching a helicopter .
It embarrasses and annoys me that this happened in my own country , which I do love dearly , but I wont let the usual anti-UK/US/Australia facebook crowd exaggerate it further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The police didn't scour facebook - locals did, saw it, and reported it as a rave.
2) The helicopter was out anyway, and they just asked the helicopter to fly over the site to really check if there was a party on its way back 
It was not police scouring facebook and dispatching a helicopter.
It embarrasses and annoys me that this happened in my own country, which I do love dearly, but I wont let the usual anti-UK/US/Australia facebook crowd exaggerate it further.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739001</id>
	<title>Bday BBQ != 'rave' by law ...of H most Excellent M</title>
	<author>D4C5CE</author>
	<datestamp>1247950380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And it is not for any kind of music festivals... No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it would be a rather vague blunkett authorisation (most spellings intentional<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-} though this section may already have been on the statute books in 2001) to crack down even on non-disturbing events, as that definition alone matches pretty much any playback of all but the most experimental recordings.<br>
<br>However, the respective <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga\_19940033\_en\_8#pt5-pb2-l1g63" title="opsi.gov.uk">section</a> [opsi.gov.uk] "applies to a gathering on land in the open air of <b>100 or more persons</b> (whether or not trespassers)" and continues regarding the music "(with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to <b>cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality</b>".<br>Does not exactly look like the definition of an average birthday party, no matter whether the "kids'" friends were invited by way of (as opposed to the event being advertised on) the apparently suspicion-generating Evilnet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it is not for any kind of music festivals... No , no , no , only raves : " playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night.No , it would be a rather vague blunkett authorisation ( most spellings intentional ; - } though this section may already have been on the statute books in 2001 ) to crack down even on non-disturbing events , as that definition alone matches pretty much any playback of all but the most experimental recordings .
However , the respective section [ opsi.gov.uk ] " applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons ( whether or not trespassers ) " and continues regarding the music " ( with or without intermissions ) and is such as , by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played , is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality " .Does not exactly look like the definition of an average birthday party , no matter whether the " kids ' " friends were invited by way of ( as opposed to the event being advertised on ) the apparently suspicion-generating Evilnet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it is not for any kind of music festivals... No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night.No, it would be a rather vague blunkett authorisation (most spellings intentional ;-} though this section may already have been on the statute books in 2001) to crack down even on non-disturbing events, as that definition alone matches pretty much any playback of all but the most experimental recordings.
However, the respective section [opsi.gov.uk] "applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers)" and continues regarding the music "(with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality".Does not exactly look like the definition of an average birthday party, no matter whether the "kids'" friends were invited by way of (as opposed to the event being advertised on) the apparently suspicion-generating Evilnet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738981</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>init100</author>
	<datestamp>1247950080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies</p></div><p>Depending on one's own point of view, I think analogous statements can be made about many of the subcultures associated with various music genres.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippiesDepending on one 's own point of view , I think analogous statements can be made about many of the subcultures associated with various music genres .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippiesDepending on one's own point of view, I think analogous statements can be made about many of the subcultures associated with various music genres.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740339</id>
	<title>Privacy? Seriously?</title>
	<author>tmach</author>
	<datestamp>1247928360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forget whether all night parties/raves are/should be illegal... forget whether the police overreacted...  Whoever wrote that reading something on a Facebook is "trawling for our private information" is a twit.   This is 2009.  When will people learn that NOTHING on the web private?  That's ESPECIALLY  true of a social networking site--the whole purpose of which is to put yourself out there where other people can get to know you!   You want to keep your party private?  Don't #(*^\%@ advertise it on Facebook!

Seriously, people, this is internet 101.

Okay, rant over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget whether all night parties/raves are/should be illegal... forget whether the police overreacted... Whoever wrote that reading something on a Facebook is " trawling for our private information " is a twit .
This is 2009 .
When will people learn that NOTHING on the web private ?
That 's ESPECIALLY true of a social networking site--the whole purpose of which is to put yourself out there where other people can get to know you !
You want to keep your party private ?
Do n't # ( * ^ \ % @ advertise it on Facebook !
Seriously , people , this is internet 101 .
Okay , rant over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget whether all night parties/raves are/should be illegal... forget whether the police overreacted...  Whoever wrote that reading something on a Facebook is "trawling for our private information" is a twit.
This is 2009.
When will people learn that NOTHING on the web private?
That's ESPECIALLY  true of a social networking site--the whole purpose of which is to put yourself out there where other people can get to know you!
You want to keep your party private?
Don't #(*^\%@ advertise it on Facebook!
Seriously, people, this is internet 101.
Okay, rant over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740235</id>
	<title>Re:It is the LAW people</title>
	<author>vivaelamor</author>
	<datestamp>1247927340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Want to protest that? Then don't say "it shouldn't be illegal". You should made sure when the laws were introduced that it didn't become illegal by doing the same thing the petitioners did. Make your case and show that YOUR case benefits the greater good (gets the most people to vote for you).</p></div><p>You seem to have a strange contradiction going, or a lack of distinction between peoples opinions and action. On the one hand you are saying 'don't say it shouldn't be illegal' yet on the other you are saying 'change the law the same way the people who made it illegal did'. It is hard to do the latter without the former as public opinion is formed largely through communication.</p><p>I don't buy the argument that people should have done something about it at the time either. I wasn't around or wasn't eligible to vote when the majority of our society was put into law, that is aside from an argument that the system isn't adequate for its intended purposes anyway. There needs to be no excuse for bad laws, the whole idea of having a well educated legislative body to come up with these laws is to put the political will into effective laws. If the problem with raves is about fire safety and other issues of regulation then concentrate on those aspects. Even if you are unsympathetic to those who caused the problem you're jeopardising the system in a number of ways for future generations including ensuring that they can have no respect for the system.</p><p>What you seem to be posing is that people should be penalised for engaging in a non harmful activity associated with other activities that are harmful and that if the majority agree that the non harmful activity is bad it should be against the law. I would argue that the system should be more robust than a simple majority rule, if for nothing else then because it effects more than the current voting population.  The law about raves quite clearly picks out the type of music which is completely irrelevant to the underlying problems it is trying to prevent. If the aims of the law and the actual effect of the law do not match then it should not have been passed as law. If the aim of the law was to criminalize people for listening to a certain type of music then that is plainly bigotry and conflicts with reasoning used in other, more fundamental laws and again should not be passed as law.</p><p>If the process for making law was as simple as you seem to think then we could do away with a good chunk of the law and political system and just have a web site for people to submit proposals and vote on laws at. Ironically, while defending the spirit of the law process, I don't actually think it is the best way to do things let alone think that the current system is capable of meeting its own targets (as the rave legislation shows).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to protest that ?
Then do n't say " it should n't be illegal " .
You should made sure when the laws were introduced that it did n't become illegal by doing the same thing the petitioners did .
Make your case and show that YOUR case benefits the greater good ( gets the most people to vote for you ) .You seem to have a strange contradiction going , or a lack of distinction between peoples opinions and action .
On the one hand you are saying 'do n't say it should n't be illegal ' yet on the other you are saying 'change the law the same way the people who made it illegal did' .
It is hard to do the latter without the former as public opinion is formed largely through communication.I do n't buy the argument that people should have done something about it at the time either .
I was n't around or was n't eligible to vote when the majority of our society was put into law , that is aside from an argument that the system is n't adequate for its intended purposes anyway .
There needs to be no excuse for bad laws , the whole idea of having a well educated legislative body to come up with these laws is to put the political will into effective laws .
If the problem with raves is about fire safety and other issues of regulation then concentrate on those aspects .
Even if you are unsympathetic to those who caused the problem you 're jeopardising the system in a number of ways for future generations including ensuring that they can have no respect for the system.What you seem to be posing is that people should be penalised for engaging in a non harmful activity associated with other activities that are harmful and that if the majority agree that the non harmful activity is bad it should be against the law .
I would argue that the system should be more robust than a simple majority rule , if for nothing else then because it effects more than the current voting population .
The law about raves quite clearly picks out the type of music which is completely irrelevant to the underlying problems it is trying to prevent .
If the aims of the law and the actual effect of the law do not match then it should not have been passed as law .
If the aim of the law was to criminalize people for listening to a certain type of music then that is plainly bigotry and conflicts with reasoning used in other , more fundamental laws and again should not be passed as law.If the process for making law was as simple as you seem to think then we could do away with a good chunk of the law and political system and just have a web site for people to submit proposals and vote on laws at .
Ironically , while defending the spirit of the law process , I do n't actually think it is the best way to do things let alone think that the current system is capable of meeting its own targets ( as the rave legislation shows ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to protest that?
Then don't say "it shouldn't be illegal".
You should made sure when the laws were introduced that it didn't become illegal by doing the same thing the petitioners did.
Make your case and show that YOUR case benefits the greater good (gets the most people to vote for you).You seem to have a strange contradiction going, or a lack of distinction between peoples opinions and action.
On the one hand you are saying 'don't say it shouldn't be illegal' yet on the other you are saying 'change the law the same way the people who made it illegal did'.
It is hard to do the latter without the former as public opinion is formed largely through communication.I don't buy the argument that people should have done something about it at the time either.
I wasn't around or wasn't eligible to vote when the majority of our society was put into law, that is aside from an argument that the system isn't adequate for its intended purposes anyway.
There needs to be no excuse for bad laws, the whole idea of having a well educated legislative body to come up with these laws is to put the political will into effective laws.
If the problem with raves is about fire safety and other issues of regulation then concentrate on those aspects.
Even if you are unsympathetic to those who caused the problem you're jeopardising the system in a number of ways for future generations including ensuring that they can have no respect for the system.What you seem to be posing is that people should be penalised for engaging in a non harmful activity associated with other activities that are harmful and that if the majority agree that the non harmful activity is bad it should be against the law.
I would argue that the system should be more robust than a simple majority rule, if for nothing else then because it effects more than the current voting population.
The law about raves quite clearly picks out the type of music which is completely irrelevant to the underlying problems it is trying to prevent.
If the aims of the law and the actual effect of the law do not match then it should not have been passed as law.
If the aim of the law was to criminalize people for listening to a certain type of music then that is plainly bigotry and conflicts with reasoning used in other, more fundamental laws and again should not be passed as law.If the process for making law was as simple as you seem to think then we could do away with a good chunk of the law and political system and just have a web site for people to submit proposals and vote on laws at.
Ironically, while defending the spirit of the law process, I don't actually think it is the best way to do things let alone think that the current system is capable of meeting its own targets (as the rave legislation shows).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739297</id>
	<title>Re:Even if it was a rave...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247912280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself. Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people. The root of this all is the War on Drugs.</p></div><p>See that? He did say that there's nothing wrong with the rave culture. Metalheads are known for using lots of dope and booze, and jazz cats are known for slamming heroin.</p><p>You're just a bitch and you choose the most uncool culture which uses the gayest drugs and and worst fashion. Go back to your semen-crusted Star Wars bedspread, shotacon, and candy necklaces Chilly Willy. Maybe momma will breast-feed you tonight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno ( a redundancy ?
) , waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake , and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself .
Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies ; it 's not like raves are an assembly of violent people .
The root of this all is the War on Drugs.See that ?
He did say that there 's nothing wrong with the rave culture .
Metalheads are known for using lots of dope and booze , and jazz cats are known for slamming heroin.You 're just a bitch and you choose the most uncool culture which uses the gayest drugs and and worst fashion .
Go back to your semen-crusted Star Wars bedspread , shotacon , and candy necklaces Chilly Willy .
Maybe momma will breast-feed you tonight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?
), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself.
Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people.
The root of this all is the War on Drugs.See that?
He did say that there's nothing wrong with the rave culture.
Metalheads are known for using lots of dope and booze, and jazz cats are known for slamming heroin.You're just a bitch and you choose the most uncool culture which uses the gayest drugs and and worst fashion.
Go back to your semen-crusted Star Wars bedspread, shotacon, and candy necklaces Chilly Willy.
Maybe momma will breast-feed you tonight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739399</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247913840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, citation please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , citation please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, citation please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739531</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247916300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as it should be.<br>people as a rule like to sleep at night.<br>you want to rave, make sure the neighbours can't hear you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as it should be.people as a rule like to sleep at night.you want to rave , make sure the neighbours ca n't hear you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as it should be.people as a rule like to sleep at night.you want to rave, make sure the neighbours can't hear you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740039</id>
	<title>You got all you need, right now</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247925240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need to make up story. He spoke about "boiling teenagers in oil" , call the police and say you read a guy talking about boiling teenagers in oil "in an hackers forum".</p><p>If they come to his house and land a helicopter on his lawn, he will remember this message.</p><p>BTW, I am not joking. It may actually happen as I know how police mind works. There is a low rank police friend of mine which I joke as "rescue me from police station" each time I call. Guy knows me for 30 years and every single fscking time, he asks "What did you do again?". Notice the "again" part!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need to make up story .
He spoke about " boiling teenagers in oil " , call the police and say you read a guy talking about boiling teenagers in oil " in an hackers forum " .If they come to his house and land a helicopter on his lawn , he will remember this message.BTW , I am not joking .
It may actually happen as I know how police mind works .
There is a low rank police friend of mine which I joke as " rescue me from police station " each time I call .
Guy knows me for 30 years and every single fscking time , he asks " What did you do again ? " .
Notice the " again " part !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need to make up story.
He spoke about "boiling teenagers in oil" , call the police and say you read a guy talking about boiling teenagers in oil "in an hackers forum".If they come to his house and land a helicopter on his lawn, he will remember this message.BTW, I am not joking.
It may actually happen as I know how police mind works.
There is a low rank police friend of mine which I joke as "rescue me from police station" each time I call.
Guy knows me for 30 years and every single fscking time, he asks "What did you do again?".
Notice the "again" part!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741653</id>
	<title>Re:Started with a barbeque, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247939700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;How would this be right?</p><p>He IS a troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How would this be right ? He IS a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;How would this be right?He IS a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739463</id>
	<title>Re:What a good idea</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247914860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats</i></p><p>Erh... could someone explain to me what music is, aside of the "succession of repetitive beats"?</p><p>I mean, aside of Yoko Ono and similar "concept art".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>playing amplified music " wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beatsErh... could someone explain to me what music is , aside of the " succession of repetitive beats " ? I mean , aside of Yoko Ono and similar " concept art " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beatsErh... could someone explain to me what music is, aside of the "succession of repetitive beats"?I mean, aside of Yoko Ono and similar "concept art".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28744157</id>
	<title>Delusional</title>
	<author>reallocate</author>
	<datestamp>1247919000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>... the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook...</i></p><p>Some poor sod posts something on a public site and expects it to be private?</p><p>What's wrong with this picture?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; ... the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook...Some poor sod posts something on a public site and expects it to be private ? What 's wrong with this picture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; ... the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook...Some poor sod posts something on a public site and expects it to be private?What's wrong with this picture?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741411</id>
	<title>No Privacy</title>
	<author>jonfr</author>
	<datestamp>1247937540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smell a complain about the police, and a lawsuit coming in UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell a complain about the police , and a lawsuit coming in UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell a complain about the police, and a lawsuit coming in UK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739825</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247921880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quote the whole thing, which includes the ability to get a (cheap) license from the council for the event.  If you're inviting over 100 people (100 is the minimum for it to be classified as a rave under this legislation) then the cost of the license is very small per person (varies from county to county, and based on the number of people expected).</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote the whole thing , which includes the ability to get a ( cheap ) license from the council for the event .
If you 're inviting over 100 people ( 100 is the minimum for it to be classified as a rave under this legislation ) then the cost of the license is very small per person ( varies from county to county , and based on the number of people expected ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote the whole thing, which includes the ability to get a (cheap) license from the council for the event.
If you're inviting over 100 people (100 is the minimum for it to be classified as a rave under this legislation) then the cost of the license is very small per person (varies from county to county, and based on the number of people expected).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738807</id>
	<title>Okay, now here's where we need to spank police</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1247947260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This behavior of law enforcement must be punished.  Send the gun monkeys to the projects or Afghanastan if they prefer gunfire.  But for God's sake, keep these dim wits out of the social networking and online porn because when it mixes with their testosterone and weightlifting they start to act like criminals and thugs.  Maybe we can even let them go coach rugby instead, since its a total waste of tax dollars to have them storm trooping facebook parties.  The idiots never even figured out that the really "cool" and "hip" and "happening" kids all RUN CIRCLES AROUND THESE BABOONS so they might as well just give it up.  The day they actually get an invitation to a rave BEFORE its a bunch of losers is the day the kids find another way to get viral.  Sorry thrugs, cheerleaders still don't wan't you around clunking heads, so why not just get a clue and FIGHT CRIME LIKE YOUR OWN INVASION OF PRIVACY.  YOU ARE NOT WELCOME WITH YOUR PUNITIVE ATTITUDES AND IMPOTENT LITTLE MINDS.  If Police can't exercise common decency and intelligence then we shall pass LAWS that spell it out for them.  Job security is not earned by acting like morons.  We need to BUST bad behavior from the public servants that we PAY.  Unfortunately, the State is run by a bunch of Government Employees.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>This behavior of law enforcement must be punished .
Send the gun monkeys to the projects or Afghanastan if they prefer gunfire .
But for God 's sake , keep these dim wits out of the social networking and online porn because when it mixes with their testosterone and weightlifting they start to act like criminals and thugs .
Maybe we can even let them go coach rugby instead , since its a total waste of tax dollars to have them storm trooping facebook parties .
The idiots never even figured out that the really " cool " and " hip " and " happening " kids all RUN CIRCLES AROUND THESE BABOONS so they might as well just give it up .
The day they actually get an invitation to a rave BEFORE its a bunch of losers is the day the kids find another way to get viral .
Sorry thrugs , cheerleaders still do n't wa n't you around clunking heads , so why not just get a clue and FIGHT CRIME LIKE YOUR OWN INVASION OF PRIVACY .
YOU ARE NOT WELCOME WITH YOUR PUNITIVE ATTITUDES AND IMPOTENT LITTLE MINDS .
If Police ca n't exercise common decency and intelligence then we shall pass LAWS that spell it out for them .
Job security is not earned by acting like morons .
We need to BUST bad behavior from the public servants that we PAY .
Unfortunately , the State is run by a bunch of Government Employees.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This behavior of law enforcement must be punished.
Send the gun monkeys to the projects or Afghanastan if they prefer gunfire.
But for God's sake, keep these dim wits out of the social networking and online porn because when it mixes with their testosterone and weightlifting they start to act like criminals and thugs.
Maybe we can even let them go coach rugby instead, since its a total waste of tax dollars to have them storm trooping facebook parties.
The idiots never even figured out that the really "cool" and "hip" and "happening" kids all RUN CIRCLES AROUND THESE BABOONS so they might as well just give it up.
The day they actually get an invitation to a rave BEFORE its a bunch of losers is the day the kids find another way to get viral.
Sorry thrugs, cheerleaders still don't wan't you around clunking heads, so why not just get a clue and FIGHT CRIME LIKE YOUR OWN INVASION OF PRIVACY.
YOU ARE NOT WELCOME WITH YOUR PUNITIVE ATTITUDES AND IMPOTENT LITTLE MINDS.
If Police can't exercise common decency and intelligence then we shall pass LAWS that spell it out for them.
Job security is not earned by acting like morons.
We need to BUST bad behavior from the public servants that we PAY.
Unfortunately, the State is run by a bunch of Government Employees.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28754943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28746213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28745907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28746523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28743915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28744509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28753039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_0337223_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739109
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738943
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738895
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739583
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739421
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741077
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28743915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739253
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740683
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28746213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739113
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28753039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28746523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28744509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28739499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28742845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28741263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28747577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_0337223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28738945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28745907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28754943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_0337223.28740055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
