<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_26_0321245</id>
	<title>Save the Planet, Eat Your Dog</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256577360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>R3d M3rcury writes <i>"New Zealand's Dominion Post reports on a new book just released, <em>Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living</em>.  In this book, they <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/2987821/Save-the-planet-eat-a-dog">compare the environmental footprint of our housepets to other things that we own</a>.  Like that German Shepherd?  It consumes more resources than two Toyota SUVs.  Cats are a little less than a Volkswagen Golf.  Two hamsters are about the same as a plasma TV. Their suggestions?  Chickens, rabbits, and pigs.  But only if you eat them."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>R3d M3rcury writes " New Zealand 's Dominion Post reports on a new book just released , Time to Eat the Dog : The real guide to sustainable living .
In this book , they compare the environmental footprint of our housepets to other things that we own .
Like that German Shepherd ?
It consumes more resources than two Toyota SUVs .
Cats are a little less than a Volkswagen Golf .
Two hamsters are about the same as a plasma TV .
Their suggestions ?
Chickens , rabbits , and pigs .
But only if you eat them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>R3d M3rcury writes "New Zealand's Dominion Post reports on a new book just released, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.
In this book, they compare the environmental footprint of our housepets to other things that we own.
Like that German Shepherd?
It consumes more resources than two Toyota SUVs.
Cats are a little less than a Volkswagen Golf.
Two hamsters are about the same as a plasma TV.
Their suggestions?
Chickens, rabbits, and pigs.
But only if you eat them.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878609</id>
	<title>Stupid is as Stupid does.</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1256557500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of report is asinine and sensationalistic.</p><p>If you really want to save energy, eat a Politically Correct Greenie.</p><p>By the way, the planet doesn't need saving. It will continue on as if nothing happened when we are extinguished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of report is asinine and sensationalistic.If you really want to save energy , eat a Politically Correct Greenie.By the way , the planet does n't need saving .
It will continue on as if nothing happened when we are extinguished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of report is asinine and sensationalistic.If you really want to save energy, eat a Politically Correct Greenie.By the way, the planet doesn't need saving.
It will continue on as if nothing happened when we are extinguished.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870049</id>
	<title>Why Cassandra?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1256549040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These 'we're all gonna die' scenarios come from the same place. TheComingIceAge(TM), AcidRain(TM), SwineFlu(TM), OverPopulation(TM), OzoneHole(TM), PlanetsColliding(TM), GlobalWarming(TM)...Democrats at first; the Left.</p><p>Who benefits? Big Government; it panics us into accepting everything. Time to pay attention. Civics is actually important.</p><p>Reality Check:</p><p>The higher technology goes in a society, the less trash and waste there is. Remember the "London Fog"? It was due to millions of coal fires- it was all they had. It was actually "London Smog", but that's not so romantic in novels.</p><p>China's overcoming a lot of that today. Without an EPA or anything similar, broken batteries, full of acid, are just dumped into freshwater creeks for some reason. People working in those battery factories can be horribly mangled by spills and sprays; until they get a handle on it, it's gonna be miserable...just like it was once miserable here.</p><p>Time and time again we 'run out' of copper, just to find new pockets, new ways to recover it, or ways to do without it. This has also happened with the components of steel and many other commodities. In a capitalist system, as we run out, we have funding to find more or conserve better.</p><p>If you're not Christian, and know why we're here, you'll accept any number of reasons as to how we'll die next. This is the biggest terrarium known to mankind; we won't be polluting ourselves into extinction, or getting hit by a meteor, or change the climate because those are His domain.</p><p>Ever knock over a skyscraper reaching for the aspirin? Probably not. Ever forget which pocket has your keys and remember the universe you put into the keychain? I'm guessing 'no', too.  Similarly, you won't be creating sentient life in your breakfast cereal...there are some things that aren't ours to do.</p><p>Why is that so hard, just because you've gone to college? You guys keep looking *only* to science and finding no answers. Sometimes you need to look elsewhere.</p><p>Now if you'll excuse me, I have to wade through the newspapers that will poison me, the acid rain that's fallen, consider the ComingIceAge(TM), GlobalWarming(TM) and try to find politicians that don't think they can make better decisions for me, than me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These 'we 're all gon na die ' scenarios come from the same place .
TheComingIceAge ( TM ) , AcidRain ( TM ) , SwineFlu ( TM ) , OverPopulation ( TM ) , OzoneHole ( TM ) , PlanetsColliding ( TM ) , GlobalWarming ( TM ) ...Democrats at first ; the Left.Who benefits ?
Big Government ; it panics us into accepting everything .
Time to pay attention .
Civics is actually important.Reality Check : The higher technology goes in a society , the less trash and waste there is .
Remember the " London Fog " ?
It was due to millions of coal fires- it was all they had .
It was actually " London Smog " , but that 's not so romantic in novels.China 's overcoming a lot of that today .
Without an EPA or anything similar , broken batteries , full of acid , are just dumped into freshwater creeks for some reason .
People working in those battery factories can be horribly mangled by spills and sprays ; until they get a handle on it , it 's gon na be miserable...just like it was once miserable here.Time and time again we 'run out ' of copper , just to find new pockets , new ways to recover it , or ways to do without it .
This has also happened with the components of steel and many other commodities .
In a capitalist system , as we run out , we have funding to find more or conserve better.If you 're not Christian , and know why we 're here , you 'll accept any number of reasons as to how we 'll die next .
This is the biggest terrarium known to mankind ; we wo n't be polluting ourselves into extinction , or getting hit by a meteor , or change the climate because those are His domain.Ever knock over a skyscraper reaching for the aspirin ?
Probably not .
Ever forget which pocket has your keys and remember the universe you put into the keychain ?
I 'm guessing 'no ' , too .
Similarly , you wo n't be creating sentient life in your breakfast cereal...there are some things that are n't ours to do.Why is that so hard , just because you 've gone to college ?
You guys keep looking * only * to science and finding no answers .
Sometimes you need to look elsewhere.Now if you 'll excuse me , I have to wade through the newspapers that will poison me , the acid rain that 's fallen , consider the ComingIceAge ( TM ) , GlobalWarming ( TM ) and try to find politicians that do n't think they can make better decisions for me , than me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These 'we're all gonna die' scenarios come from the same place.
TheComingIceAge(TM), AcidRain(TM), SwineFlu(TM), OverPopulation(TM), OzoneHole(TM), PlanetsColliding(TM), GlobalWarming(TM)...Democrats at first; the Left.Who benefits?
Big Government; it panics us into accepting everything.
Time to pay attention.
Civics is actually important.Reality Check:The higher technology goes in a society, the less trash and waste there is.
Remember the "London Fog"?
It was due to millions of coal fires- it was all they had.
It was actually "London Smog", but that's not so romantic in novels.China's overcoming a lot of that today.
Without an EPA or anything similar, broken batteries, full of acid, are just dumped into freshwater creeks for some reason.
People working in those battery factories can be horribly mangled by spills and sprays; until they get a handle on it, it's gonna be miserable...just like it was once miserable here.Time and time again we 'run out' of copper, just to find new pockets, new ways to recover it, or ways to do without it.
This has also happened with the components of steel and many other commodities.
In a capitalist system, as we run out, we have funding to find more or conserve better.If you're not Christian, and know why we're here, you'll accept any number of reasons as to how we'll die next.
This is the biggest terrarium known to mankind; we won't be polluting ourselves into extinction, or getting hit by a meteor, or change the climate because those are His domain.Ever knock over a skyscraper reaching for the aspirin?
Probably not.
Ever forget which pocket has your keys and remember the universe you put into the keychain?
I'm guessing 'no', too.
Similarly, you won't be creating sentient life in your breakfast cereal...there are some things that aren't ours to do.Why is that so hard, just because you've gone to college?
You guys keep looking *only* to science and finding no answers.
Sometimes you need to look elsewhere.Now if you'll excuse me, I have to wade through the newspapers that will poison me, the acid rain that's fallen, consider the ComingIceAge(TM), GlobalWarming(TM) and try to find politicians that don't think they can make better decisions for me, than me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870319</id>
	<title>Re:Their "Pollution"</title>
	<author>qc\_dk</author>
	<datestamp>1256552820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Only they didn't show the hockey graph was bogus, and lately a completely different method and analysis has confirmed the hockey graph: <a href="http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tingley/mean\_variance.pdf" title="harvard.edu">http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tingley/mean\_variance.pdf</a> [harvard.edu]
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>why do people still worry about CO2?</p></div><p>Maybe you should ask yourself why you fail to worry about CO2 and you will know the answer to your question?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only they did n't show the hockey graph was bogus , and lately a completely different method and analysis has confirmed the hockey graph : http : //www.people.fas.harvard.edu/ ~ tingley/mean \ _variance.pdf [ harvard.edu ] why do people still worry about CO2 ? Maybe you should ask yourself why you fail to worry about CO2 and you will know the answer to your question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Only they didn't show the hockey graph was bogus, and lately a completely different method and analysis has confirmed the hockey graph: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tingley/mean\_variance.pdf [harvard.edu]
why do people still worry about CO2?Maybe you should ask yourself why you fail to worry about CO2 and you will know the answer to your question?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873231</id>
	<title>A modest comment</title>
	<author>boyko.at.netqos</author>
	<datestamp>1256575860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think a dog is bad - you should see the ecological footprint of an <a href="http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html" title="art-bin.com">Irish child!</a> [art-bin.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think a dog is bad - you should see the ecological footprint of an Irish child !
[ art-bin.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think a dog is bad - you should see the ecological footprint of an Irish child!
[art-bin.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872441</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting rhetoric - but a bit shortsighted</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The next logical step would have been to put into perspective the energy footprint of children.</p> </div><p>The footprint of an average human is already well-known to be significant, and conservationists have been preaching a reduction or reversal of population growth for decades, thus this is not even inconsistent with that particular view. Nice karma whoring though.</p><p>P.S. Apples and Oranges are both tree fruit, so they are highly comparable. Just another stupid saying for stupid people. But as my friend Rodent says, "There's a fine line between sayings that make sense."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The next logical step would have been to put into perspective the energy footprint of children .
The footprint of an average human is already well-known to be significant , and conservationists have been preaching a reduction or reversal of population growth for decades , thus this is not even inconsistent with that particular view .
Nice karma whoring though.P.S .
Apples and Oranges are both tree fruit , so they are highly comparable .
Just another stupid saying for stupid people .
But as my friend Rodent says , " There 's a fine line between sayings that make sense .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next logical step would have been to put into perspective the energy footprint of children.
The footprint of an average human is already well-known to be significant, and conservationists have been preaching a reduction or reversal of population growth for decades, thus this is not even inconsistent with that particular view.
Nice karma whoring though.P.S.
Apples and Oranges are both tree fruit, so they are highly comparable.
Just another stupid saying for stupid people.
But as my friend Rodent says, "There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871007</id>
	<title>A Modest Proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256563020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds good to me, I've been looking for something to add to all the baby meat I've been eating...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds good to me , I 've been looking for something to add to all the baby meat I 've been eating.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds good to me, I've been looking for something to add to all the baby meat I've been eating...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869855</id>
	<title>Why only pets? We should analyze wild animals as w</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256589360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take into account something big - like a mammoth ! I the analysis done in 13121BC by Bang Bang it was shown that ecological impact of a mammoth is as large as a whole tribe and the only sensible thing to do is to eat a mammoth !!!</p><p>In the follow-up analysis by Crack Crack in 13099BC it was suggested that to stop Global Warming ( icesheet in France was vanishing<br>at a shockingly quick rate) we have to eat all the mammoths. Otherwise our friends in British peninsula could be completely<br>separated from Europe mainland! This would cause fatal psychological effects for many generations...</p><p>The mammoth extintion was approved by an intertribe meeting in a igloo in Ven-Ice hills... All mammoths and further all woolly things<br>(with exceptions of sheep) were exterminated but it did not stop Global Warming...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take into account something big - like a mammoth !
I the analysis done in 13121BC by Bang Bang it was shown that ecological impact of a mammoth is as large as a whole tribe and the only sensible thing to do is to eat a mammoth ! !
! In the follow-up analysis by Crack Crack in 13099BC it was suggested that to stop Global Warming ( icesheet in France was vanishingat a shockingly quick rate ) we have to eat all the mammoths .
Otherwise our friends in British peninsula could be completelyseparated from Europe mainland !
This would cause fatal psychological effects for many generations...The mammoth extintion was approved by an intertribe meeting in a igloo in Ven-Ice hills... All mammoths and further all woolly things ( with exceptions of sheep ) were exterminated but it did not stop Global Warming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take into account something big - like a mammoth !
I the analysis done in 13121BC by Bang Bang it was shown that ecological impact of a mammoth is as large as a whole tribe and the only sensible thing to do is to eat a mammoth !!
!In the follow-up analysis by Crack Crack in 13099BC it was suggested that to stop Global Warming ( icesheet in France was vanishingat a shockingly quick rate) we have to eat all the mammoths.
Otherwise our friends in British peninsula could be completelyseparated from Europe mainland!
This would cause fatal psychological effects for many generations...The mammoth extintion was approved by an intertribe meeting in a igloo in Ven-Ice hills... All mammoths and further all woolly things(with exceptions of sheep) were exterminated but it did not stop Global Warming...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870305</id>
	<title>feck dogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256552580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feck dogs and feck dog owners!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feck dogs and feck dog owners !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feck dogs and feck dog owners!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869629</id>
	<title>Instead of my dog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256499840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about I eat an environmentalist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about I eat an environmentalist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about I eat an environmentalist?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871593</id>
	<title>Re:Another suggestion</title>
	<author>roguetrick</author>
	<datestamp>1256567580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, let me tell you, the rest of humanity doesn't give a damn about you and your pets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let me tell you , the rest of humanity does n't give a damn about you and your pets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, let me tell you, the rest of humanity doesn't give a damn about you and your pets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869777</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like you have a lot of pets...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256588220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Hell ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Hell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Hell ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869235</id>
	<title>Re:Another suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My suggestion is they can fuck off.  I care more about my dogs (and cats, cockatiel, and tank of fish) than I do the rest of humanity.</p><p>And no, this isn't sarcasm.</p></div><p>My thoughts exactly!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion is they can fuck off .
I care more about my dogs ( and cats , cockatiel , and tank of fish ) than I do the rest of humanity.And no , this is n't sarcasm.My thoughts exactly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion is they can fuck off.
I care more about my dogs (and cats, cockatiel, and tank of fish) than I do the rest of humanity.And no, this isn't sarcasm.My thoughts exactly!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869697</id>
	<title>You'll have to pry suv &amp; pets from my cold dea</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1256500680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll have to pry my suv &amp; pets from my cold dead hand you damn dirty stinking extreme environ-MENTAL-ist human!</p><p>First off it's just a means for the author to get sales for his works of fiction, for fiction it will surely turn out to be.</p><p>Actually I have a van but still...</p><p>They hypothesis of global warming was renamed climate change since the counter evidence kept pointing out too many flaws in AGW. "You are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts". The facts of AGW simply don't support their hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis put up against AGW is that it's simply Nature at work and that has yet to be proven wrong by anything from the AGW camp while the keystones of the AGW hypothesis are regularly falsified. The more I look into the details of the AGW hypothesis claims the less it seems plausible or possible position to hold.</p><p>Save our pets from the maws and jaws of the AGW Pet Eating Hordes! They're pet eating zombies! What's next? Soylent Green is People as a means of saving the Earth from our own AGW mythology?</p><p>In a hundred years people will wonder how primitive and gullible we were to accept the intentionally exaggerated claims of AGW folks (like Al Exaggeration is Needed to Get Action Gore, hockey stick reprimanded by his peers Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen of GISS Nasa who failed in his forecasts of 20 years ago that NYC would be underwater by now, the IPCC and many others).</p><p>I prefer to review the actual factual evidence and come to reasonable supportable conclusions.</p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/bob-carter-with-a-down-under-view-of-climate-science" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/bob-carter-with-a-down-under-view-of-climate-science</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll have to pry my suv &amp; pets from my cold dead hand you damn dirty stinking extreme environ-MENTAL-ist human ! First off it 's just a means for the author to get sales for his works of fiction , for fiction it will surely turn out to be.Actually I have a van but still...They hypothesis of global warming was renamed climate change since the counter evidence kept pointing out too many flaws in AGW .
" You are entitled to your own interpretation , but not to your own facts " .
The facts of AGW simply do n't support their hypothesis .
The Null Hypothesis put up against AGW is that it 's simply Nature at work and that has yet to be proven wrong by anything from the AGW camp while the keystones of the AGW hypothesis are regularly falsified .
The more I look into the details of the AGW hypothesis claims the less it seems plausible or possible position to hold.Save our pets from the maws and jaws of the AGW Pet Eating Hordes !
They 're pet eating zombies !
What 's next ?
Soylent Green is People as a means of saving the Earth from our own AGW mythology ? In a hundred years people will wonder how primitive and gullible we were to accept the intentionally exaggerated claims of AGW folks ( like Al Exaggeration is Needed to Get Action Gore , hockey stick reprimanded by his peers Dr. Mann , Dr. Hansen of GISS Nasa who failed in his forecasts of 20 years ago that NYC would be underwater by now , the IPCC and many others ) .I prefer to review the actual factual evidence and come to reasonable supportable conclusions.http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/bob-carter-with-a-down-under-view-of-climate-science [ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll have to pry my suv &amp; pets from my cold dead hand you damn dirty stinking extreme environ-MENTAL-ist human!First off it's just a means for the author to get sales for his works of fiction, for fiction it will surely turn out to be.Actually I have a van but still...They hypothesis of global warming was renamed climate change since the counter evidence kept pointing out too many flaws in AGW.
"You are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts".
The facts of AGW simply don't support their hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis put up against AGW is that it's simply Nature at work and that has yet to be proven wrong by anything from the AGW camp while the keystones of the AGW hypothesis are regularly falsified.
The more I look into the details of the AGW hypothesis claims the less it seems plausible or possible position to hold.Save our pets from the maws and jaws of the AGW Pet Eating Hordes!
They're pet eating zombies!
What's next?
Soylent Green is People as a means of saving the Earth from our own AGW mythology?In a hundred years people will wonder how primitive and gullible we were to accept the intentionally exaggerated claims of AGW folks (like Al Exaggeration is Needed to Get Action Gore, hockey stick reprimanded by his peers Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen of GISS Nasa who failed in his forecasts of 20 years ago that NYC would be underwater by now, the IPCC and many others).I prefer to review the actual factual evidence and come to reasonable supportable conclusions.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/bob-carter-with-a-down-under-view-of-climate-science [wattsupwiththat.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869763</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256588040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just ran the numbers, CFLs do seem to save money.  Even assuming one dies at half its stated lifetime (still, I just replaced a CFL bulb that lasted roughly 17k hours on a 10k hour rated bulb), a 100W equivalent CFL still saves $30 in electricity over its lifetime compared to tungsten.  Then there's the cost and inconvenience saved in not having to replace bulbs so often.  It's not a universal thing though, if you only use a bulb for minutes at a time, then a tungsten bulb will do better, fluorescents tend to have a limited number of starts.</p><p>I'm interested in LED, I guess I should try one, but they seem pretty expensive compared to CFL, more than 10x more expensive and I don't think the additional lifetime, if any, pays back for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ran the numbers , CFLs do seem to save money .
Even assuming one dies at half its stated lifetime ( still , I just replaced a CFL bulb that lasted roughly 17k hours on a 10k hour rated bulb ) , a 100W equivalent CFL still saves $ 30 in electricity over its lifetime compared to tungsten .
Then there 's the cost and inconvenience saved in not having to replace bulbs so often .
It 's not a universal thing though , if you only use a bulb for minutes at a time , then a tungsten bulb will do better , fluorescents tend to have a limited number of starts.I 'm interested in LED , I guess I should try one , but they seem pretty expensive compared to CFL , more than 10x more expensive and I do n't think the additional lifetime , if any , pays back for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just ran the numbers, CFLs do seem to save money.
Even assuming one dies at half its stated lifetime (still, I just replaced a CFL bulb that lasted roughly 17k hours on a 10k hour rated bulb), a 100W equivalent CFL still saves $30 in electricity over its lifetime compared to tungsten.
Then there's the cost and inconvenience saved in not having to replace bulbs so often.
It's not a universal thing though, if you only use a bulb for minutes at a time, then a tungsten bulb will do better, fluorescents tend to have a limited number of starts.I'm interested in LED, I guess I should try one, but they seem pretty expensive compared to CFL, more than 10x more expensive and I don't think the additional lifetime, if any, pays back for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869671</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>pspahn</author>
	<datestamp>1256500380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you ever seen what the Colorado River looks like as it "dumps" into the Sea of Cortez? Its flow is not infinite, and a once vast marsh is now barely a trickle due to its use in agriculture.
<br> <br>
I wonder, also, if you have ever seen how the land in California's Central Valley has changed in the last 100 years due to agricultural use of the aquifer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever seen what the Colorado River looks like as it " dumps " into the Sea of Cortez ?
Its flow is not infinite , and a once vast marsh is now barely a trickle due to its use in agriculture .
I wonder , also , if you have ever seen how the land in California 's Central Valley has changed in the last 100 years due to agricultural use of the aquifer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever seen what the Colorado River looks like as it "dumps" into the Sea of Cortez?
Its flow is not infinite, and a once vast marsh is now barely a trickle due to its use in agriculture.
I wonder, also, if you have ever seen how the land in California's Central Valley has changed in the last 100 years due to agricultural use of the aquifer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870693</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256558400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troublingly, the inability of people to divorce themselves from the "moral good" of owning a pet runs very deep in our culture, and I suspect from conversations I've had with people not raised in a comfortable liberal democracy, owes most of its tenacity to the life experiences of the subject.  - If it would never come down to you or the dog, then you never have that thought, and regard pets as sacrosanct.</p><p>But I'd be more careful how I approached anyone in that context now.  A few months back, the family dog (for whom I had no particular affection for, and felt that attitude was shared generally) was put down after developing very serious motor problems.  My elderly father, who had a history of mental illness (despite the longest period of functional behavior since the onset of his disorder) spiralled into an acute, almost psychotically rapid mania.  The only trigger I could identify was the dog.</p><p>I'd long since stopped caring for and identifying with animals, and most people, generally speaking - I fancy myself something of a hardass.  But for a lot of people, pets continue to stand in as surrogates for confronting lonliness, fear, love, and death throughout their lives.  They would be the first voluntary, elective connection a lot of children make to another being, the first thing they encounter subordinate to themselves, and most obviously the first time they confront mortality, in time-honored sitcom tradition.  Most importantly, no pet will ever verbally challenge its master's belief in it, well except maybe a parrot.</p><p>My father had lost most of his army buddies, relatives he was close with, et cetera.  He handled all of those better than the dog.  And it wasn't even his dog.  Ultimately, we deal with human beings as adults.  With maturity that comes from repeated interaction and our lifetime's trial and error.  Pets never ask us to improve on the model we learn, so we deal with them just as we did as children, if not forced to alter our attitudes.  All it takes, I think, is one regression back to an old way of fuctioning to undermine us as individuals, as rational creatures.  People project their own feelings onto pets in a way they seldom do with other human beings, and that can be a fundamentally dangerous thing to dispute with someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troublingly , the inability of people to divorce themselves from the " moral good " of owning a pet runs very deep in our culture , and I suspect from conversations I 've had with people not raised in a comfortable liberal democracy , owes most of its tenacity to the life experiences of the subject .
- If it would never come down to you or the dog , then you never have that thought , and regard pets as sacrosanct.But I 'd be more careful how I approached anyone in that context now .
A few months back , the family dog ( for whom I had no particular affection for , and felt that attitude was shared generally ) was put down after developing very serious motor problems .
My elderly father , who had a history of mental illness ( despite the longest period of functional behavior since the onset of his disorder ) spiralled into an acute , almost psychotically rapid mania .
The only trigger I could identify was the dog.I 'd long since stopped caring for and identifying with animals , and most people , generally speaking - I fancy myself something of a hardass .
But for a lot of people , pets continue to stand in as surrogates for confronting lonliness , fear , love , and death throughout their lives .
They would be the first voluntary , elective connection a lot of children make to another being , the first thing they encounter subordinate to themselves , and most obviously the first time they confront mortality , in time-honored sitcom tradition .
Most importantly , no pet will ever verbally challenge its master 's belief in it , well except maybe a parrot.My father had lost most of his army buddies , relatives he was close with , et cetera .
He handled all of those better than the dog .
And it was n't even his dog .
Ultimately , we deal with human beings as adults .
With maturity that comes from repeated interaction and our lifetime 's trial and error .
Pets never ask us to improve on the model we learn , so we deal with them just as we did as children , if not forced to alter our attitudes .
All it takes , I think , is one regression back to an old way of fuctioning to undermine us as individuals , as rational creatures .
People project their own feelings onto pets in a way they seldom do with other human beings , and that can be a fundamentally dangerous thing to dispute with someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troublingly, the inability of people to divorce themselves from the "moral good" of owning a pet runs very deep in our culture, and I suspect from conversations I've had with people not raised in a comfortable liberal democracy, owes most of its tenacity to the life experiences of the subject.
- If it would never come down to you or the dog, then you never have that thought, and regard pets as sacrosanct.But I'd be more careful how I approached anyone in that context now.
A few months back, the family dog (for whom I had no particular affection for, and felt that attitude was shared generally) was put down after developing very serious motor problems.
My elderly father, who had a history of mental illness (despite the longest period of functional behavior since the onset of his disorder) spiralled into an acute, almost psychotically rapid mania.
The only trigger I could identify was the dog.I'd long since stopped caring for and identifying with animals, and most people, generally speaking - I fancy myself something of a hardass.
But for a lot of people, pets continue to stand in as surrogates for confronting lonliness, fear, love, and death throughout their lives.
They would be the first voluntary, elective connection a lot of children make to another being, the first thing they encounter subordinate to themselves, and most obviously the first time they confront mortality, in time-honored sitcom tradition.
Most importantly, no pet will ever verbally challenge its master's belief in it, well except maybe a parrot.My father had lost most of his army buddies, relatives he was close with, et cetera.
He handled all of those better than the dog.
And it wasn't even his dog.
Ultimately, we deal with human beings as adults.
With maturity that comes from repeated interaction and our lifetime's trial and error.
Pets never ask us to improve on the model we learn, so we deal with them just as we did as children, if not forced to alter our attitudes.
All it takes, I think, is one regression back to an old way of fuctioning to undermine us as individuals, as rational creatures.
People project their own feelings onto pets in a way they seldom do with other human beings, and that can be a fundamentally dangerous thing to dispute with someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869717</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1256587320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.

</p><p>What to do...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Slashdot is a good start. Pretty soon, offspring will come to mean programs you've written, which have a very small carbon footprint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant .
What to do.. . Slashdot is a good start .
Pretty soon , offspring will come to mean programs you 've written , which have a very small carbon footprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.
What to do...
Slashdot is a good start.
Pretty soon, offspring will come to mean programs you've written, which have a very small carbon footprint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869401</id>
	<title>I don't know</title>
	<author>DSwitz</author>
	<datestamp>1256497080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This Proposal seems rather Modest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This Proposal seems rather Modest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Proposal seems rather Modest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29898967</id>
	<title>Quite an achievment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is by far the mos stupid and biased thing i've ever read on slashdot... and that's quite an achievment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is by far the mos stupid and biased thing i 've ever read on slashdot... and that 's quite an achievment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is by far the mos stupid and biased thing i've ever read on slashdot... and that's quite an achievment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29876297</id>
	<title>Blasphemy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256590440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can imagine the rage in California as people are informed of the hypocracy of driving a Prius with 3 great danes. Did they add in the costs of all the "doggy daycare" and elitist grooming too? I have a friend down there who once told me they were applying for a job in a bakery... for dogs. Seriously, this place was solely dedicated to gourmet dog treats. Better buy another Prius to make up for it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine the rage in California as people are informed of the hypocracy of driving a Prius with 3 great danes .
Did they add in the costs of all the " doggy daycare " and elitist grooming too ?
I have a friend down there who once told me they were applying for a job in a bakery... for dogs .
Seriously , this place was solely dedicated to gourmet dog treats .
Better buy another Prius to make up for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine the rage in California as people are informed of the hypocracy of driving a Prius with 3 great danes.
Did they add in the costs of all the "doggy daycare" and elitist grooming too?
I have a friend down there who once told me they were applying for a job in a bakery... for dogs.
Seriously, this place was solely dedicated to gourmet dog treats.
Better buy another Prius to make up for it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872245</id>
	<title>flapdoodle</title>
	<author>ncmathsadist</author>
	<datestamp>1256571060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The greenies do themselves a disservice when they harp on stuff like this.  It makes them look like foolish chicken-littles.  Another sky is falling story. fml.  right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The greenies do themselves a disservice when they harp on stuff like this .
It makes them look like foolish chicken-littles .
Another sky is falling story .
fml. right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greenies do themselves a disservice when they harp on stuff like this.
It makes them look like foolish chicken-littles.
Another sky is falling story.
fml.  right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871649</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256568000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, now that I think of it, there's an obvious issue that justifies the cannibalism quips. Namely, the near absence of considerations of value in the "sustainable life" calculations. A lot of the discussion in the linked article is of the form "X consumes a lot of energy/produces a lot of pollution and hence on that basis alone is a good/bad thing). Since for some reason, we seem to be only considering the carbon footprint (or similar) as a measure of the worth of something, then naturally, we should consider our fellow humans, who generally have a much larger carbon footprint than pets do.<br> <br>

The point of most of these responses is to illustrate the serious fallacy of considering only some small part of a thing as the whole of its value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , now that I think of it , there 's an obvious issue that justifies the cannibalism quips .
Namely , the near absence of considerations of value in the " sustainable life " calculations .
A lot of the discussion in the linked article is of the form " X consumes a lot of energy/produces a lot of pollution and hence on that basis alone is a good/bad thing ) .
Since for some reason , we seem to be only considering the carbon footprint ( or similar ) as a measure of the worth of something , then naturally , we should consider our fellow humans , who generally have a much larger carbon footprint than pets do .
The point of most of these responses is to illustrate the serious fallacy of considering only some small part of a thing as the whole of its value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, now that I think of it, there's an obvious issue that justifies the cannibalism quips.
Namely, the near absence of considerations of value in the "sustainable life" calculations.
A lot of the discussion in the linked article is of the form "X consumes a lot of energy/produces a lot of pollution and hence on that basis alone is a good/bad thing).
Since for some reason, we seem to be only considering the carbon footprint (or similar) as a measure of the worth of something, then naturally, we should consider our fellow humans, who generally have a much larger carbon footprint than pets do.
The point of most of these responses is to illustrate the serious fallacy of considering only some small part of a thing as the whole of its value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869727</id>
	<title>How about eat your book you putz..</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1256587560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...then eat shit and die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...then eat shit and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then eat shit and die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869411</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256497200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What to do...</i>
<p>
Keep feeding them spicy food.
</p><p>
They'll be all the more appetising when civilisation collapses and we resort to cannibalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What to do.. . Keep feeding them spicy food .
They 'll be all the more appetising when civilisation collapses and we resort to cannibalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What to do...

Keep feeding them spicy food.
They'll be all the more appetising when civilisation collapses and we resort to cannibalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871101</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalist nonsense</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1256563980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree 100\%. Why do you think many describe a number of environmental groups as <i>watermelons</i>--green on the outside (they want to save the environment) but red on the inside (it's an excuse to destroy capitalism).</p><p>Mind you, the history of environmentalism in Leftist countries is a sordid one, as noted by the innumerable toxic waste sites in the former Soviet Union and the huge pollution problems in China now....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % .
Why do you think many describe a number of environmental groups as watermelons--green on the outside ( they want to save the environment ) but red on the inside ( it 's an excuse to destroy capitalism ) .Mind you , the history of environmentalism in Leftist countries is a sordid one , as noted by the innumerable toxic waste sites in the former Soviet Union and the huge pollution problems in China now... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\%.
Why do you think many describe a number of environmental groups as watermelons--green on the outside (they want to save the environment) but red on the inside (it's an excuse to destroy capitalism).Mind you, the history of environmentalism in Leftist countries is a sordid one, as noted by the innumerable toxic waste sites in the former Soviet Union and the huge pollution problems in China now....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869267</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This argument sounds pretty stupid if you compare the German shepherd to the average American.</p><p>How about you try getting fatty to put down the McDonald's first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This argument sounds pretty stupid if you compare the German shepherd to the average American.How about you try getting fatty to put down the McDonald 's first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This argument sounds pretty stupid if you compare the German shepherd to the average American.How about you try getting fatty to put down the McDonald's first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870791</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>s4ltyd0g</author>
	<datestamp>1256560080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I'm wearing milk bone underware....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm wearing milk bone underware... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm wearing milk bone underware....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871011</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>thoth</author>
	<datestamp>1256563080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away. Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail. Fucking hypocrites!</p><p>My local grocery store charges $0.99 for a reusable shopping bag, and also deducts $0.05 from the bill for everyone you use.  Thus, after only 20 uses, the bag pays for itself and you start to make a small amount of money off it.  So not every store is out to nickel/dime you and rip you off at every turn.</p><p>4) Water conservation and rationing. What a fucking joke. It's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so. Water is not scarce on this planet. It recycles well if you don't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals. The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet. Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we weren't so skitish about grey water. Water as a scarce resource, and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infrastructure.</p><p>Water may not be scarce, but drinking water is.  Most of the people in the world don't have access to clean, safe, drinking water.  Granted, my conservation of said safe drinking water doesn't fill the cup of some kid in Cairo or Kolkata, but it still doesn't help to waste it needlessly.  I lived in central FL for a while, and water rationing is in effect to limit how much people can water their lawns, or otherwise you know some boneheads would water it for hours every day.  And no, very few homes have separate "non potable - safe but not for drinking" water lines run to homes for lawns usage (although many business parks or commercial districts did), so those thousands of gallons of water dumped on lawns were the same stuff coming out of the faucet.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable " green " " enviro " bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away .
Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we could n't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail .
Fucking hypocrites ! My local grocery store charges $ 0.99 for a reusable shopping bag , and also deducts $ 0.05 from the bill for everyone you use .
Thus , after only 20 uses , the bag pays for itself and you start to make a small amount of money off it .
So not every store is out to nickel/dime you and rip you off at every turn.4 ) Water conservation and rationing .
What a fucking joke .
It 's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so .
Water is not scarce on this planet .
It recycles well if you do n't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals .
The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet .
Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we were n't so skitish about grey water .
Water as a scarce resource , and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infrastructure.Water may not be scarce , but drinking water is .
Most of the people in the world do n't have access to clean , safe , drinking water .
Granted , my conservation of said safe drinking water does n't fill the cup of some kid in Cairo or Kolkata , but it still does n't help to waste it needlessly .
I lived in central FL for a while , and water rationing is in effect to limit how much people can water their lawns , or otherwise you know some boneheads would water it for hours every day .
And no , very few homes have separate " non potable - safe but not for drinking " water lines run to homes for lawns usage ( although many business parks or commercial districts did ) , so those thousands of gallons of water dumped on lawns were the same stuff coming out of the faucet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away.
Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail.
Fucking hypocrites!My local grocery store charges $0.99 for a reusable shopping bag, and also deducts $0.05 from the bill for everyone you use.
Thus, after only 20 uses, the bag pays for itself and you start to make a small amount of money off it.
So not every store is out to nickel/dime you and rip you off at every turn.4) Water conservation and rationing.
What a fucking joke.
It's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so.
Water is not scarce on this planet.
It recycles well if you don't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals.
The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet.
Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we weren't so skitish about grey water.
Water as a scarce resource, and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infrastructure.Water may not be scarce, but drinking water is.
Most of the people in the world don't have access to clean, safe, drinking water.
Granted, my conservation of said safe drinking water doesn't fill the cup of some kid in Cairo or Kolkata, but it still doesn't help to waste it needlessly.
I lived in central FL for a while, and water rationing is in effect to limit how much people can water their lawns, or otherwise you know some boneheads would water it for hours every day.
And no, very few homes have separate "non potable - safe but not for drinking" water lines run to homes for lawns usage (although many business parks or commercial districts did), so those thousands of gallons of water dumped on lawns were the same stuff coming out of the faucet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873655</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256578020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YES. even worse, with each new technology or environmental initiative, the original problem, overpopulation, can be pushed into the future for resolving. we dig in deeper as we refuse to deal with unintended consequences of our behaviors. and, of course, the planet is perfectly fine with cycling us out of the system, using disease, or infertility (trust me, the planet will "adjust" us). nature bats last. if we want to solve this problem, we cannot fight with ourselves, and cannot fight nature. if we fight, we lose.</p><p>The solution, as mentioned in SCI AM this month, is educate girls, so they grow up to not have so many children. i dont mean indoctrinate, just give them the same hope each boy has of having a real human life, and not to be a baby machine/slave to men. maybe 5 generations from now we can be down to below 500 million, with green technology making a difference at that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YES .
even worse , with each new technology or environmental initiative , the original problem , overpopulation , can be pushed into the future for resolving .
we dig in deeper as we refuse to deal with unintended consequences of our behaviors .
and , of course , the planet is perfectly fine with cycling us out of the system , using disease , or infertility ( trust me , the planet will " adjust " us ) .
nature bats last .
if we want to solve this problem , we can not fight with ourselves , and can not fight nature .
if we fight , we lose.The solution , as mentioned in SCI AM this month , is educate girls , so they grow up to not have so many children .
i dont mean indoctrinate , just give them the same hope each boy has of having a real human life , and not to be a baby machine/slave to men .
maybe 5 generations from now we can be down to below 500 million , with green technology making a difference at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES.
even worse, with each new technology or environmental initiative, the original problem, overpopulation, can be pushed into the future for resolving.
we dig in deeper as we refuse to deal with unintended consequences of our behaviors.
and, of course, the planet is perfectly fine with cycling us out of the system, using disease, or infertility (trust me, the planet will "adjust" us).
nature bats last.
if we want to solve this problem, we cannot fight with ourselves, and cannot fight nature.
if we fight, we lose.The solution, as mentioned in SCI AM this month, is educate girls, so they grow up to not have so many children.
i dont mean indoctrinate, just give them the same hope each boy has of having a real human life, and not to be a baby machine/slave to men.
maybe 5 generations from now we can be down to below 500 million, with green technology making a difference at that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870509</id>
	<title>Re:in Soviet Russia</title>
	<author>Burpmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256555100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dogs eat YOU!</p></div><p>And that's even more effective!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs eat YOU ! And that 's even more effective !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs eat YOU!And that's even more effective!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873871</id>
	<title>The book is about more</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that anyone will still be reading this discussion. Especially this far down the page...</p><p>But I actually looked up the book:<br><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Eat-Dog-Sustainable-Living/dp/0500287902/" title="amazon.co.uk">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Eat-Dog-Sustainable-Living/dp/0500287902/</a> [amazon.co.uk]</p><p>They've chosen an inflammatory title, alright, but it seems the book's about a lot more than pets, and it doesn't look if they really advocate killing the family pooch for a meal.</p><p>It looks as if the whole book is about calculating the overall cost of various things in terms of resource usage using a standard unit of hectares/year. Supposedly there are interesting surprises in there. One review mentions that they say that a fully occupied plane is more efficient per passenger mile than cycling (taking into account the food to fuel the rider, and the hot shower to wash of their sweat).</p><p>It looks like they've misjudged their publicity drive though. The pet owners are clearly not impressed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that anyone will still be reading this discussion .
Especially this far down the page...But I actually looked up the book : http : //www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Eat-Dog-Sustainable-Living/dp/0500287902/ [ amazon.co.uk ] They 've chosen an inflammatory title , alright , but it seems the book 's about a lot more than pets , and it does n't look if they really advocate killing the family pooch for a meal.It looks as if the whole book is about calculating the overall cost of various things in terms of resource usage using a standard unit of hectares/year .
Supposedly there are interesting surprises in there .
One review mentions that they say that a fully occupied plane is more efficient per passenger mile than cycling ( taking into account the food to fuel the rider , and the hot shower to wash of their sweat ) .It looks like they 've misjudged their publicity drive though .
The pet owners are clearly not impressed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that anyone will still be reading this discussion.
Especially this far down the page...But I actually looked up the book:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Eat-Dog-Sustainable-Living/dp/0500287902/ [amazon.co.uk]They've chosen an inflammatory title, alright, but it seems the book's about a lot more than pets, and it doesn't look if they really advocate killing the family pooch for a meal.It looks as if the whole book is about calculating the overall cost of various things in terms of resource usage using a standard unit of hectares/year.
Supposedly there are interesting surprises in there.
One review mentions that they say that a fully occupied plane is more efficient per passenger mile than cycling (taking into account the food to fuel the rider, and the hot shower to wash of their sweat).It looks like they've misjudged their publicity drive though.
The pet owners are clearly not impressed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872585</id>
	<title>Out With Them!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256572560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets just ban all pets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets just ban all pets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets just ban all pets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869897</id>
	<title>hm</title>
	<author>Arimus</author>
	<datestamp>1256590020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Hop on green bandwagon<br>2. Use unsubstantiated/flawed maths<br>3. ????<br>4. Profit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Hop on green bandwagon2 .
Use unsubstantiated/flawed maths3 .
? ? ? ? 4. Profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Hop on green bandwagon2.
Use unsubstantiated/flawed maths3.
????4. Profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869263</id>
	<title>Re:Another suggestion</title>
	<author>dafing</author>
	<datestamp>1256495520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll know who to blame when the icecaps have melted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll know who to blame when the icecaps have melted : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll know who to blame when the icecaps have melted :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869331</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>Techman83</author>
	<datestamp>1256496180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did near on drive off the road when I heard this on the Radio early today. I have to agree that my initial thought was that it was a load of bollocks and it's really pissing me off, the simple one line statements that are spouted in generic media. My second thought was to ask, can you back that up? What about including factors such as, I'm more liable to walk my dog to the shops, than drive my car, but if I didn't have a dog I probably couldn't be assed. <br> <br>These studies make a lot of brash assumptions!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did near on drive off the road when I heard this on the Radio early today .
I have to agree that my initial thought was that it was a load of bollocks and it 's really pissing me off , the simple one line statements that are spouted in generic media .
My second thought was to ask , can you back that up ?
What about including factors such as , I 'm more liable to walk my dog to the shops , than drive my car , but if I did n't have a dog I probably could n't be assed .
These studies make a lot of brash assumptions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did near on drive off the road when I heard this on the Radio early today.
I have to agree that my initial thought was that it was a load of bollocks and it's really pissing me off, the simple one line statements that are spouted in generic media.
My second thought was to ask, can you back that up?
What about including factors such as, I'm more liable to walk my dog to the shops, than drive my car, but if I didn't have a dog I probably couldn't be assed.
These studies make a lot of brash assumptions!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870473</id>
	<title>Eat your Children Perhaps?</title>
	<author>Liambp</author>
	<datestamp>1256554620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I note that they do not appear to have included human children in the list of animals evaluated. Perhaps in a follow on study they could determine if eating our own offspring would be beneficial to the environment.

On a more serious note I feel that the summary has drawn some very dodgy conclusions from what could otherwise have be a very useful piece of research. The analysis of the resources consumed by pets is an important lesson and a reminder to us all to try and include Fido and Tiddles in our thinking about sustainable living. The fact that herbivorous pets have a much lower eco footprint than carnivores is perhaps obvious but nevertheless worth reminding people about. However banning cats and dogs is unlikely to ever be acceptable and the suggestion that we only keep pets for the dinner table is laughable.

Then again if they hadn't come up with the headline about eating man's best friend I wouldn't be reading about it on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would I?

Unrelated question: How do folks who do not have a PhD in computer science get line breaks into their slash dot posts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I note that they do not appear to have included human children in the list of animals evaluated .
Perhaps in a follow on study they could determine if eating our own offspring would be beneficial to the environment .
On a more serious note I feel that the summary has drawn some very dodgy conclusions from what could otherwise have be a very useful piece of research .
The analysis of the resources consumed by pets is an important lesson and a reminder to us all to try and include Fido and Tiddles in our thinking about sustainable living .
The fact that herbivorous pets have a much lower eco footprint than carnivores is perhaps obvious but nevertheless worth reminding people about .
However banning cats and dogs is unlikely to ever be acceptable and the suggestion that we only keep pets for the dinner table is laughable .
Then again if they had n't come up with the headline about eating man 's best friend I would n't be reading about it on / .
would I ?
Unrelated question : How do folks who do not have a PhD in computer science get line breaks into their slash dot posts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I note that they do not appear to have included human children in the list of animals evaluated.
Perhaps in a follow on study they could determine if eating our own offspring would be beneficial to the environment.
On a more serious note I feel that the summary has drawn some very dodgy conclusions from what could otherwise have be a very useful piece of research.
The analysis of the resources consumed by pets is an important lesson and a reminder to us all to try and include Fido and Tiddles in our thinking about sustainable living.
The fact that herbivorous pets have a much lower eco footprint than carnivores is perhaps obvious but nevertheless worth reminding people about.
However banning cats and dogs is unlikely to ever be acceptable and the suggestion that we only keep pets for the dinner table is laughable.
Then again if they hadn't come up with the headline about eating man's best friend I wouldn't be reading about it on /.
would I?
Unrelated question: How do folks who do not have a PhD in computer science get line breaks into their slash dot posts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871825</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>poofmeisterp</author>
	<datestamp>1256568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What a load of bullshit. We fuel SUVs using fossil fuels which adds to the carbon cycle, hence contributing to global warming. Now, if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them.</p></div><p>Just curious what your viewpoint is; I'm not agreeing or disagreeing (for the record).</p><p>In terms of millions of years before Humans existed on this planet, what do you believe caused the global warming events of the past?  Global cooling periods follow the warming events, hence "cycle."</p><p>I wonder what would be happening today if we didn't have and Human affect or intervention.</p><p>What are your thoughts?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of bullshit .
We fuel SUVs using fossil fuels which adds to the carbon cycle , hence contributing to global warming .
Now , if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them.Just curious what your viewpoint is ; I 'm not agreeing or disagreeing ( for the record ) .In terms of millions of years before Humans existed on this planet , what do you believe caused the global warming events of the past ?
Global cooling periods follow the warming events , hence " cycle .
" I wonder what would be happening today if we did n't have and Human affect or intervention.What are your thoughts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of bullshit.
We fuel SUVs using fossil fuels which adds to the carbon cycle, hence contributing to global warming.
Now, if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them.Just curious what your viewpoint is; I'm not agreeing or disagreeing (for the record).In terms of millions of years before Humans existed on this planet, what do you believe caused the global warming events of the past?
Global cooling periods follow the warming events, hence "cycle.
"I wonder what would be happening today if we didn't have and Human affect or intervention.What are your thoughts?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256496240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but I don't think anything realistic has been proposed here</p></div><p>So little imagination.  The "proposal" is implied.</p><p>This gem of enviro-wennie research will rattle around among the cocktail parties of the jet-set ruling class until one of them becomes convinced they can make a big splash by regulating pet ownership in the name of the "environment."  Expect this to appear first in San Francisco in the next few years in the form punitive pet taxes.  Thereafter limits and outright bans will be created.</p><p>Except for horses.  There won't be any meaningful limits on horse owners.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but I do n't think anything realistic has been proposed hereSo little imagination .
The " proposal " is implied.This gem of enviro-wennie research will rattle around among the cocktail parties of the jet-set ruling class until one of them becomes convinced they can make a big splash by regulating pet ownership in the name of the " environment .
" Expect this to appear first in San Francisco in the next few years in the form punitive pet taxes .
Thereafter limits and outright bans will be created.Except for horses .
There wo n't be any meaningful limits on horse owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I don't think anything realistic has been proposed hereSo little imagination.
The "proposal" is implied.This gem of enviro-wennie research will rattle around among the cocktail parties of the jet-set ruling class until one of them becomes convinced they can make a big splash by regulating pet ownership in the name of the "environment.
"  Expect this to appear first in San Francisco in the next few years in the form punitive pet taxes.
Thereafter limits and outright bans will be created.Except for horses.
There won't be any meaningful limits on horse owners.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873227</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>rainmaestro</author>
	<datestamp>1256575800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That many of a species that without modern technology and medicine should by rights number in the tens or hundreds of thousands just isn't going to be sustainable.</p></div><p>Okay, I'll preface this by saying that I agree the current rate of growth is not sustainable.</p><p>However, the idea that our population should number in the thousands is way off. Pre-Columbian populations in the US were &gt;1 million (estimates range quite a bit, but the *low* end of the scale is still above 1 million). The city of Alexandria at its peak in ancient times had over 300K citizens. Neither example had anything close to "modern" technology and medicine.</p><p>The real problem is not so much the numbers, it is age. We weren't meant to naturally live into our 80's. With a faster turnover from the "natural" life expectancy of 35-45 years, you could probably support more people (fewer "drains" on resources from the old/infirm/etc).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That many of a species that without modern technology and medicine should by rights number in the tens or hundreds of thousands just is n't going to be sustainable.Okay , I 'll preface this by saying that I agree the current rate of growth is not sustainable.However , the idea that our population should number in the thousands is way off .
Pre-Columbian populations in the US were &gt; 1 million ( estimates range quite a bit , but the * low * end of the scale is still above 1 million ) .
The city of Alexandria at its peak in ancient times had over 300K citizens .
Neither example had anything close to " modern " technology and medicine.The real problem is not so much the numbers , it is age .
We were n't meant to naturally live into our 80 's .
With a faster turnover from the " natural " life expectancy of 35-45 years , you could probably support more people ( fewer " drains " on resources from the old/infirm/etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That many of a species that without modern technology and medicine should by rights number in the tens or hundreds of thousands just isn't going to be sustainable.Okay, I'll preface this by saying that I agree the current rate of growth is not sustainable.However, the idea that our population should number in the thousands is way off.
Pre-Columbian populations in the US were &gt;1 million (estimates range quite a bit, but the *low* end of the scale is still above 1 million).
The city of Alexandria at its peak in ancient times had over 300K citizens.
Neither example had anything close to "modern" technology and medicine.The real problem is not so much the numbers, it is age.
We weren't meant to naturally live into our 80's.
With a faster turnover from the "natural" life expectancy of 35-45 years, you could probably support more people (fewer "drains" on resources from the old/infirm/etc).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29882069</id>
	<title>On a similar note...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256644860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Save the planet, eat your children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Save the planet , eat your children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Save the planet, eat your children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</id>
	<title>Another suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256494980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My suggestion is they can fuck off.  I care more about my dogs (and cats, cockatiel, and tank of fish) than I do the rest of humanity.</p><p>And no, this isn't sarcasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion is they can fuck off .
I care more about my dogs ( and cats , cockatiel , and tank of fish ) than I do the rest of humanity.And no , this is n't sarcasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion is they can fuck off.
I care more about my dogs (and cats, cockatiel, and tank of fish) than I do the rest of humanity.And no, this isn't sarcasm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869759</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1256588040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess, since they're talking about land area, they're comparing with cars run on biofuels, the most efficient (kJ/hectare-wise) of which is palm oil - explosive growth in demand for which is largely single-handedly responsible for recent large-scale deforestation of Indonesia, and the impending extinction of several rare species, including the Orangutan, the cuteness factor of which is causing people to sit up and take notice, unfortunately probably too late for the Sumatran Rhino and Tiger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess , since they 're talking about land area , they 're comparing with cars run on biofuels , the most efficient ( kJ/hectare-wise ) of which is palm oil - explosive growth in demand for which is largely single-handedly responsible for recent large-scale deforestation of Indonesia , and the impending extinction of several rare species , including the Orangutan , the cuteness factor of which is causing people to sit up and take notice , unfortunately probably too late for the Sumatran Rhino and Tiger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess, since they're talking about land area, they're comparing with cars run on biofuels, the most efficient (kJ/hectare-wise) of which is palm oil - explosive growth in demand for which is largely single-handedly responsible for recent large-scale deforestation of Indonesia, and the impending extinction of several rare species, including the Orangutan, the cuteness factor of which is causing people to sit up and take notice, unfortunately probably too late for the Sumatran Rhino and Tiger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869745</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>carbon116</author>
	<datestamp>1256587800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first read this article in New Scientist.</p><p><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html</a> [newscientist.com]</p><p>When they talk about the eco footprint of something, they include *everything* relating to that item.  So with these cars, it includes the original manufacture, use of fuel during the car lifetime and subsequent emissions.</p><p>For SUVs, they are talking about 4.6l Toyota Land cruisers.</p><p>I do agree that environmentalists seem to be nit picking, but I think the general idea is that the Human species in general is using using far too many resources in every part of our lives for us to be around much longer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first read this article in New Scientist.http : //www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html [ newscientist.com ] When they talk about the eco footprint of something , they include * everything * relating to that item .
So with these cars , it includes the original manufacture , use of fuel during the car lifetime and subsequent emissions.For SUVs , they are talking about 4.6l Toyota Land cruisers.I do agree that environmentalists seem to be nit picking , but I think the general idea is that the Human species in general is using using far too many resources in every part of our lives for us to be around much longer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first read this article in New Scientist.http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html [newscientist.com]When they talk about the eco footprint of something, they include *everything* relating to that item.
So with these cars, it includes the original manufacture, use of fuel during the car lifetime and subsequent emissions.For SUVs, they are talking about 4.6l Toyota Land cruisers.I do agree that environmentalists seem to be nit picking, but I think the general idea is that the Human species in general is using using far too many resources in every part of our lives for us to be around much longer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869365</id>
	<title>I'm writing a new book..</title>
	<author>greywire</author>
	<datestamp>1256496480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..its called "Save the planet, Eat your neighbor".</p><p>Do you have idea what the carbon footprint of a human is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..its called " Save the planet , Eat your neighbor " .Do you have idea what the carbon footprint of a human is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..its called "Save the planet, Eat your neighbor".Do you have idea what the carbon footprint of a human is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871131</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>roguetrick</author>
	<datestamp>1256564220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As the owner of two dogs, sign me up. I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane.  Additionally, I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.  And a program for harvesting this valuable resource - maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideas?</p></div><p>Denied.The dog is a fine producer of methane and the landfill is a pretty poor one.  Additionally, dog feces are a public health hazard and should not be used as manure.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I also want another credit for the carbon offset from being able to turn the heat down at night - because happiness <b>is</b> a warm puppy.  Dogs are just as good as an electric blanket.  Actually, they're better - they continue to work during power failures.</p></div><p>Denied. The dog never turns off and is wasting its heat, as well as being an inefficient heater. In addition, the dog is obviously a workaround for the <b>mandatory rolling blackouts</b> This is unacceptable</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, I should get an additional carbon credit for every kilometer I do with the dogs dragging me around on either roller blades (summer) or a sled (winter).  And both investment credits and a subsidy for the purchase of a dog-drawn cart.</p><p>And for the bonus round, you can always grind up those professors who wrote this piece of trash as a quick way to make a buck; my wolf probably isn't too fussy about who he eats - he chews EVERYTHING, and I'm sure their carbon footprint is larger than his.  And, since they're already producing shit, why not cut out the middle man<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Will be taken into consideration, in the meantime it is recommended you feed yourself to your pet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the owner of two dogs , sign me up .
I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane .
Additionally , I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer .
And a program for harvesting this valuable resource - maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideas ? Denied.The dog is a fine producer of methane and the landfill is a pretty poor one .
Additionally , dog feces are a public health hazard and should not be used as manure.I also want another credit for the carbon offset from being able to turn the heat down at night - because happiness is a warm puppy .
Dogs are just as good as an electric blanket .
Actually , they 're better - they continue to work during power failures.Denied .
The dog never turns off and is wasting its heat , as well as being an inefficient heater .
In addition , the dog is obviously a workaround for the mandatory rolling blackouts This is unacceptableAlso , I should get an additional carbon credit for every kilometer I do with the dogs dragging me around on either roller blades ( summer ) or a sled ( winter ) .
And both investment credits and a subsidy for the purchase of a dog-drawn cart.And for the bonus round , you can always grind up those professors who wrote this piece of trash as a quick way to make a buck ; my wolf probably is n't too fussy about who he eats - he chews EVERYTHING , and I 'm sure their carbon footprint is larger than his .
And , since they 're already producing shit , why not cut out the middle man ...Will be taken into consideration , in the meantime it is recommended you feed yourself to your pet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the owner of two dogs, sign me up.
I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane.
Additionally, I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.
And a program for harvesting this valuable resource - maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideas?Denied.The dog is a fine producer of methane and the landfill is a pretty poor one.
Additionally, dog feces are a public health hazard and should not be used as manure.I also want another credit for the carbon offset from being able to turn the heat down at night - because happiness is a warm puppy.
Dogs are just as good as an electric blanket.
Actually, they're better - they continue to work during power failures.Denied.
The dog never turns off and is wasting its heat, as well as being an inefficient heater.
In addition, the dog is obviously a workaround for the mandatory rolling blackouts This is unacceptableAlso, I should get an additional carbon credit for every kilometer I do with the dogs dragging me around on either roller blades (summer) or a sled (winter).
And both investment credits and a subsidy for the purchase of a dog-drawn cart.And for the bonus round, you can always grind up those professors who wrote this piece of trash as a quick way to make a buck; my wolf probably isn't too fussy about who he eats - he chews EVERYTHING, and I'm sure their carbon footprint is larger than his.
And, since they're already producing shit, why not cut out the middle man ...Will be taken into consideration, in the meantime it is recommended you feed yourself to your pet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873775</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1256578620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In that time there hasn't been a significant increase in natural production of CO2 and an overall increase of CO2 by about 33\%.</p></div><p>If as the ice-core data shows, CO2 lags warming, then there would be significant increases of CO2 from increased solar output.</p><p>You did modify your numbers in a later post.  But the actual numbers are less significant that the fact that you're claiming the warmth follows the rise in CO2, where evidence indicates the CO2 follows the warmth.  The natural CO2 is easily explained by warming tundras and less CO2 consumers in the warming oceans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In that time there has n't been a significant increase in natural production of CO2 and an overall increase of CO2 by about 33 \ % .If as the ice-core data shows , CO2 lags warming , then there would be significant increases of CO2 from increased solar output.You did modify your numbers in a later post .
But the actual numbers are less significant that the fact that you 're claiming the warmth follows the rise in CO2 , where evidence indicates the CO2 follows the warmth .
The natural CO2 is easily explained by warming tundras and less CO2 consumers in the warming oceans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that time there hasn't been a significant increase in natural production of CO2 and an overall increase of CO2 by about 33\%.If as the ice-core data shows, CO2 lags warming, then there would be significant increases of CO2 from increased solar output.You did modify your numbers in a later post.
But the actual numbers are less significant that the fact that you're claiming the warmth follows the rise in CO2, where evidence indicates the CO2 follows the warmth.
The natural CO2 is easily explained by warming tundras and less CO2 consumers in the warming oceans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871905</id>
	<title>Save the Planet, Kill Yourself!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Save the Planet, Kill Yourself," is one of the funniest bumper stickers I have ever seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Save the Planet , Kill Yourself , " is one of the funniest bumper stickers I have ever seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Save the Planet, Kill Yourself," is one of the funniest bumper stickers I have ever seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869677</id>
	<title>NZ headline: Owner roasts family pet in barbecue</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1256500440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was big news a few months ago a when a Tongan couple were discovered roasting an unwanted pet dog on their barbeque in Auckland, New Zealand. www.stuff.co.nz/national/2756912/Owner-roasts-family-pet-in-barbecue</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was big news a few months ago a when a Tongan couple were discovered roasting an unwanted pet dog on their barbeque in Auckland , New Zealand .
www.stuff.co.nz/national/2756912/Owner-roasts-family-pet-in-barbecue</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was big news a few months ago a when a Tongan couple were discovered roasting an unwanted pet dog on their barbeque in Auckland, New Zealand.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/2756912/Owner-roasts-family-pet-in-barbecue</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875781</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the pets and see its effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256587860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, if you can't learn to love animals, what good is this world for anyways? Ultimately, protection of the environment is about protecting it for life to live on. These environmental scientists have sort of missed the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , if you ca n't learn to love animals , what good is this world for anyways ?
Ultimately , protection of the environment is about protecting it for life to live on .
These environmental scientists have sort of missed the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, if you can't learn to love animals, what good is this world for anyways?
Ultimately, protection of the environment is about protecting it for life to live on.
These environmental scientists have sort of missed the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873681</id>
	<title>Can you spell strawman?</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256578140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, the book is dumb. But what's even dumber is putting out strawman statements like this. Of course, the book isn't advocating "killing and eating all the animals". It's about getting rid of our pets. "Pets" != "all animals".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the book is dumb .
But what 's even dumber is putting out strawman statements like this .
Of course , the book is n't advocating " killing and eating all the animals " .
It 's about getting rid of our pets .
" Pets " ! = " all animals " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the book is dumb.
But what's even dumber is putting out strawman statements like this.
Of course, the book isn't advocating "killing and eating all the animals".
It's about getting rid of our pets.
"Pets" != "all animals".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869435</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1256497380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find each blanket I put on in winter makes me extra cozy. One blanket, okay. Two blankets, yay. Three blankets, toasty. Four blankets, warm snuggly bliss. Five blankets, okay, that's too hot.</p><p>We have the right number of blankets on the bed, we don't need to add any more.</p><p>The numbers of CO2 increase we're talking about is not something like 2\%. It's something like 33\%. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna\_Loa\_Carbon\_Dioxide-en.svg" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna\_Loa\_Carbon\_Dioxide-en.svg</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find each blanket I put on in winter makes me extra cozy .
One blanket , okay .
Two blankets , yay .
Three blankets , toasty .
Four blankets , warm snuggly bliss .
Five blankets , okay , that 's too hot.We have the right number of blankets on the bed , we do n't need to add any more.The numbers of CO2 increase we 're talking about is not something like 2 \ % .
It 's something like 33 \ % .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Mauna \ _Loa \ _Carbon \ _Dioxide-en.svg [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find each blanket I put on in winter makes me extra cozy.
One blanket, okay.
Two blankets, yay.
Three blankets, toasty.
Four blankets, warm snuggly bliss.
Five blankets, okay, that's too hot.We have the right number of blankets on the bed, we don't need to add any more.The numbers of CO2 increase we're talking about is not something like 2\%.
It's something like 33\%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna\_Loa\_Carbon\_Dioxide-en.svg [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869925</id>
	<title>Wrong!</title>
	<author>Fengpost</author>
	<datestamp>1256590380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the study take in account the methane the dog produces?  Dogs are even more of a threat to the environment than cattle!  Having said that, you would need to get pass me to kill my dog!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the study take in account the methane the dog produces ?
Dogs are even more of a threat to the environment than cattle !
Having said that , you would need to get pass me to kill my dog !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the study take in account the methane the dog produces?
Dogs are even more of a threat to the environment than cattle!
Having said that, you would need to get pass me to kill my dog!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870229</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1256551560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't agree with your other points, but your complaint over plastic bags is the most outrageous. How hard is it for you to buy a couple of canvas bags to take to the supermarket with you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with your other points , but your complaint over plastic bags is the most outrageous .
How hard is it for you to buy a couple of canvas bags to take to the supermarket with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with your other points, but your complaint over plastic bags is the most outrageous.
How hard is it for you to buy a couple of canvas bags to take to the supermarket with you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29881543</id>
	<title>Re:hardly evil</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1256635260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't say "perfectly 100\% pure evil". I said "generally evil". That's plenty, especially when you get to the death row people.</p><p>Of course, the non-evil ones are still nearly all worthless to society.</p><p>There certainly is a degree of evil in drug crimes (supporting criminal empires with murderous thugs) and prostitution (spreading disease among the general population). Even peeing in an alley is a problem; it damages property value because nobody wants to live or work where it smells like pee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't say " perfectly 100 \ % pure evil " .
I said " generally evil " .
That 's plenty , especially when you get to the death row people.Of course , the non-evil ones are still nearly all worthless to society.There certainly is a degree of evil in drug crimes ( supporting criminal empires with murderous thugs ) and prostitution ( spreading disease among the general population ) .
Even peeing in an alley is a problem ; it damages property value because nobody wants to live or work where it smells like pee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't say "perfectly 100\% pure evil".
I said "generally evil".
That's plenty, especially when you get to the death row people.Of course, the non-evil ones are still nearly all worthless to society.There certainly is a degree of evil in drug crimes (supporting criminal empires with murderous thugs) and prostitution (spreading disease among the general population).
Even peeing in an alley is a problem; it damages property value because nobody wants to live or work where it smells like pee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869583</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>maglor\_83</author>
	<datestamp>1256499240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why have a car if you only drive 40km per year?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why have a car if you only drive 40km per year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why have a car if you only drive 40km per year?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869981</id>
	<title>Here's your problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256548140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One hectare of land <b>can</b> produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means....</p></div><p>So, if they had used the energy that a hectare produces on average, instead of some idealized figure the result would have been substantially different.  And this 135 gigajoules is produced how? Solar? Hydro? Nuclear???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year , which means....So , if they had used the energy that a hectare produces on average , instead of some idealized figure the result would have been substantially different .
And this 135 gigajoules is produced how ?
Solar ? Hydro ?
Nuclear ? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means....So, if they had used the energy that a hectare produces on average, instead of some idealized figure the result would have been substantially different.
And this 135 gigajoules is produced how?
Solar? Hydro?
Nuclear???
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875285</id>
	<title>The professor should kill himself</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1256585520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that will certainly save more carbon footprint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that will certainly save more carbon footprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that will certainly save more carbon footprint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</id>
	<title>interesting responses</title>
	<author>misanthrope101</author>
	<datestamp>1256498580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying that eating pets is viable or necessary, but I find the responses interesting.   When people say "we might as well eat neighbors|kids|whoever" they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level, value-wise, with the lives of humans.  I'm a shameless speciesist (or is it species chauvinist?) and I'm always jarred by people treating animals as if they're as valuable, as humans.   I know people who would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals.   Seriously.</p><p>   This thing goes pretty deep, and always amazes me.   I used to work in an ER, and I had to sew up a child's face after she was bitten by a dog.  After she was discharged , I was criticizing the family for  having a 100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression living in the house with their 4 year old child.   One of my co-workers got really angry at me, saying "we don't know that that child did to provoke the dog!  Did you even ask that?"   She blamed the kid and sided with the dog.   I was dumbfounded.   It fascinates me that people can work alongside one another and have profoundly divergent value systems.   I'd have been less shocked to find that an otherwise amicable co-worker belonged to the Aryan Nation than to hear her side with the dog over a mauled child.

</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying that eating pets is viable or necessary , but I find the responses interesting .
When people say " we might as well eat neighbors | kids | whoever " they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level , value-wise , with the lives of humans .
I 'm a shameless speciesist ( or is it species chauvinist ?
) and I 'm always jarred by people treating animals as if they 're as valuable , as humans .
I know people who would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals .
Seriously. This thing goes pretty deep , and always amazes me .
I used to work in an ER , and I had to sew up a child 's face after she was bitten by a dog .
After she was discharged , I was criticizing the family for having a 100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression living in the house with their 4 year old child .
One of my co-workers got really angry at me , saying " we do n't know that that child did to provoke the dog !
Did you even ask that ?
" She blamed the kid and sided with the dog .
I was dumbfounded .
It fascinates me that people can work alongside one another and have profoundly divergent value systems .
I 'd have been less shocked to find that an otherwise amicable co-worker belonged to the Aryan Nation than to hear her side with the dog over a mauled child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying that eating pets is viable or necessary, but I find the responses interesting.
When people say "we might as well eat neighbors|kids|whoever" they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level, value-wise, with the lives of humans.
I'm a shameless speciesist (or is it species chauvinist?
) and I'm always jarred by people treating animals as if they're as valuable, as humans.
I know people who would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals.
Seriously.   This thing goes pretty deep, and always amazes me.
I used to work in an ER, and I had to sew up a child's face after she was bitten by a dog.
After she was discharged , I was criticizing the family for  having a 100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression living in the house with their 4 year old child.
One of my co-workers got really angry at me, saying "we don't know that that child did to provoke the dog!
Did you even ask that?
"   She blamed the kid and sided with the dog.
I was dumbfounded.
It fascinates me that people can work alongside one another and have profoundly divergent value systems.
I'd have been less shocked to find that an otherwise amicable co-worker belonged to the Aryan Nation than to hear her side with the dog over a mauled child.

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869417</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1256497260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all have to do our bit for the planet.  I have a gas bbq.  You wanna borrow?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all have to do our bit for the planet .
I have a gas bbq .
You wan na borrow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all have to do our bit for the planet.
I have a gas bbq.
You wanna borrow?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875201</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1256585100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rice paddies have a huge negative carbon footprint, due to their high methane production.  Even sheep make less of an impact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rice paddies have a huge negative carbon footprint , due to their high methane production .
Even sheep make less of an impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rice paddies have a huge negative carbon footprint, due to their high methane production.
Even sheep make less of an impact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870929</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256562060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, two people producing one offspring is a great idea.  Please, let's go into negative population growth.</p><p>Why is this idea so popular?</p><p>Could we save resources, etc by removing people? Of course, but this is the same as the "let's eat dogs" argument this thread is supposed to be about.  This "solution" doesn't actually solve anything meaningful.</p><p>It would be like halting production on an assembly line to save resources for a company.  Sure, you are no longer spending money so the company is saved, but as soon as you run out of stock you have to start producing again anyway so the solution doesn't actually work.</p><p>All "population control" does is attempt to take rights away from other people.  It's just another one of many tyrannies put into place to "help" the "less intelligent".</p><p>Every day I see the modern day equivalent of The White Man's Burden.  "You aren't smart enough to make up your own mind, let me do it for you, you poor uncivilized, less fortunate person!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , two people producing one offspring is a great idea .
Please , let 's go into negative population growth.Why is this idea so popular ? Could we save resources , etc by removing people ?
Of course , but this is the same as the " let 's eat dogs " argument this thread is supposed to be about .
This " solution " does n't actually solve anything meaningful.It would be like halting production on an assembly line to save resources for a company .
Sure , you are no longer spending money so the company is saved , but as soon as you run out of stock you have to start producing again anyway so the solution does n't actually work.All " population control " does is attempt to take rights away from other people .
It 's just another one of many tyrannies put into place to " help " the " less intelligent " .Every day I see the modern day equivalent of The White Man 's Burden .
" You are n't smart enough to make up your own mind , let me do it for you , you poor uncivilized , less fortunate person !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, two people producing one offspring is a great idea.
Please, let's go into negative population growth.Why is this idea so popular?Could we save resources, etc by removing people?
Of course, but this is the same as the "let's eat dogs" argument this thread is supposed to be about.
This "solution" doesn't actually solve anything meaningful.It would be like halting production on an assembly line to save resources for a company.
Sure, you are no longer spending money so the company is saved, but as soon as you run out of stock you have to start producing again anyway so the solution doesn't actually work.All "population control" does is attempt to take rights away from other people.
It's just another one of many tyrannies put into place to "help" the "less intelligent".Every day I see the modern day equivalent of The White Man's Burden.
"You aren't smart enough to make up your own mind, let me do it for you, you poor uncivilized, less fortunate person!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870889</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalist nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256561580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.</p><p>A few years ago I went to a website (I've since long forgotten the URL) where you could measure your environmental impact by answering some questions on a survey form. For example, "How many miles do you drive per day? How many people are in your house?". So I filled it out honestly; and the website reported that I had a big environmental footprint, and that I needed to cut back.</p><p>Just out of curiosity...I closed my browser, went back to the website; and redid the survey where every answer had the least impact (0 miles, 0 people in the house)...and despite that, the website reported I was still making too big of an environmental footprint!</p><p>My cynicism against environmental groups went up a couple points that day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree.A few years ago I went to a website ( I 've since long forgotten the URL ) where you could measure your environmental impact by answering some questions on a survey form .
For example , " How many miles do you drive per day ?
How many people are in your house ? " .
So I filled it out honestly ; and the website reported that I had a big environmental footprint , and that I needed to cut back.Just out of curiosity...I closed my browser , went back to the website ; and redid the survey where every answer had the least impact ( 0 miles , 0 people in the house ) ...and despite that , the website reported I was still making too big of an environmental footprint ! My cynicism against environmental groups went up a couple points that day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.A few years ago I went to a website (I've since long forgotten the URL) where you could measure your environmental impact by answering some questions on a survey form.
For example, "How many miles do you drive per day?
How many people are in your house?".
So I filled it out honestly; and the website reported that I had a big environmental footprint, and that I needed to cut back.Just out of curiosity...I closed my browser, went back to the website; and redid the survey where every answer had the least impact (0 miles, 0 people in the house)...and despite that, the website reported I was still making too big of an environmental footprint!My cynicism against environmental groups went up a couple points that day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870239</id>
	<title>Why not "Save the Planet - Eat Your Bitch"?</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1256551680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I mean, if they're just trying to get publicity for a stupid book they've written that uses very bad pseudo-science (they're architects, FFS), why not go all the way?
</p><p>
Or "Save the Planet - Soylent Green 4Ever"
</p><p>
Or "Save the Planet - Baby-In-A-Bag in resealable pouches"
</p><p>

I'd vote for "Save the Planet - FOAD" for these two authors.  They bring nothing useful to the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , if they 're just trying to get publicity for a stupid book they 've written that uses very bad pseudo-science ( they 're architects , FFS ) , why not go all the way ?
Or " Save the Planet - Soylent Green 4Ever " Or " Save the Planet - Baby-In-A-Bag in resealable pouches " I 'd vote for " Save the Planet - FOAD " for these two authors .
They bring nothing useful to the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I mean, if they're just trying to get publicity for a stupid book they've written that uses very bad pseudo-science (they're architects, FFS), why not go all the way?
Or "Save the Planet - Soylent Green 4Ever"

Or "Save the Planet - Baby-In-A-Bag in resealable pouches"


I'd vote for "Save the Planet - FOAD" for these two authors.
They bring nothing useful to the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869865</id>
	<title>Wrong conclusion</title>
	<author>DavMz</author>
	<datestamp>1256589600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eating pets because they use resource makes as much sense as using horses to pull cars because they use fuel.

I am sure that with such a title the book will be a best-seller: riding the green wave and provocative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eating pets because they use resource makes as much sense as using horses to pull cars because they use fuel .
I am sure that with such a title the book will be a best-seller : riding the green wave and provocative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eating pets because they use resource makes as much sense as using horses to pull cars because they use fuel.
I am sure that with such a title the book will be a best-seller: riding the green wave and provocative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869259</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalist nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>no kidding.  I saw compost the oxygen thieves that buy into this shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no kidding .
I saw compost the oxygen thieves that buy into this shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no kidding.
I saw compost the oxygen thieves that buy into this shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869625</id>
	<title>I'm not sure who this author is...</title>
	<author>andrewagill</author>
	<datestamp>1256499840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but she has marvelous judgment, if not particularly good taste.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but she has marvelous judgment , if not particularly good taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but she has marvelous judgment, if not particularly good taste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870621</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256557500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CO2 is a mild thing. Do you think there's a significant source of CFC's and such from natural sources?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is a mild thing .
Do you think there 's a significant source of CFC 's and such from natural sources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is a mild thing.
Do you think there's a significant source of CFC's and such from natural sources?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869241</id>
	<title>Well, they do</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1256495160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How come this is a new idea, they have been doing this for years in Guang Dong Province,China, first dogs, rats, and now cats...
I think i am gonna be sick picturing it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How come this is a new idea , they have been doing this for years in Guang Dong Province,China , first dogs , rats , and now cats.. . I think i am gon na be sick picturing it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come this is a new idea, they have been doing this for years in Guang Dong Province,China, first dogs, rats, and now cats...
I think i am gonna be sick picturing it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870723</id>
	<title>VHEM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256558880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.vhemt.org/</p><p>Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. May we live long and die out. Thank you for not breeding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.vhemt.org/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement .
May we live long and die out .
Thank you for not breeding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.vhemt.org/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
May we live long and die out.
Thank you for not breeding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870051</id>
	<title>No way !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256549040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dogs : "Time to eat the master". 100\% efficient. 100\% renewable. So goooood !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs : " Time to eat the master " .
100 \ % efficient .
100 \ % renewable .
So goooood !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs : "Time to eat the master".
100\% efficient.
100\% renewable.
So goooood !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873565</id>
	<title>Ok, some answers</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Lightbulbs: what on earth are you talking about? No one is coming into your house and demanding that you replace STILL WORKING incandescents. They're just not going to be making them any more. And that's because CFLs really, no kidding, do save energy and money over their lifetime. LEDs I'm sure will be great... when they become widely available... which they aren't yet.
2) Grocery bags. The replacement of paper bags with plastic had nothing to do with being "green" and everything to do with the fact that it cost the grocery stores less to supply them. And if you don't like the sturdy, for sale, "green bags"... don't buy them. The ordinary bags are still available everywhere I've shopped.
3) Solar hot water. Nothing to say here but [citation needed].
4) Water. Might come as a shock to you, but the places where you can put new reservoirs without serious economic impact are pretty limited. The people and businesses who own property within the proposed basin are going to be annoyed, for starters. But sure, we could do better with gray water recycling, etc. On the whole, I'm not sure what your point is here.</p><p>Final paragraph is probably the smartest - yes, population control is the real answer here. But in the meantime, here we all are... all 6.5B of us. I think we need do something in the meantime.</p><p>Finally, geez, rant much? I think it's rather ironic that someone who opens up his post being annoyed with people "losing their fucking minds" when environmentalism is mentioned... promptly loses his mind in the body of the post. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Lightbulbs : what on earth are you talking about ?
No one is coming into your house and demanding that you replace STILL WORKING incandescents .
They 're just not going to be making them any more .
And that 's because CFLs really , no kidding , do save energy and money over their lifetime .
LEDs I 'm sure will be great... when they become widely available... which they are n't yet .
2 ) Grocery bags .
The replacement of paper bags with plastic had nothing to do with being " green " and everything to do with the fact that it cost the grocery stores less to supply them .
And if you do n't like the sturdy , for sale , " green bags " ... do n't buy them .
The ordinary bags are still available everywhere I 've shopped .
3 ) Solar hot water .
Nothing to say here but [ citation needed ] .
4 ) Water .
Might come as a shock to you , but the places where you can put new reservoirs without serious economic impact are pretty limited .
The people and businesses who own property within the proposed basin are going to be annoyed , for starters .
But sure , we could do better with gray water recycling , etc .
On the whole , I 'm not sure what your point is here.Final paragraph is probably the smartest - yes , population control is the real answer here .
But in the meantime , here we all are... all 6.5B of us .
I think we need do something in the meantime.Finally , geez , rant much ?
I think it 's rather ironic that someone who opens up his post being annoyed with people " losing their fucking minds " when environmentalism is mentioned... promptly loses his mind in the body of the post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Lightbulbs: what on earth are you talking about?
No one is coming into your house and demanding that you replace STILL WORKING incandescents.
They're just not going to be making them any more.
And that's because CFLs really, no kidding, do save energy and money over their lifetime.
LEDs I'm sure will be great... when they become widely available... which they aren't yet.
2) Grocery bags.
The replacement of paper bags with plastic had nothing to do with being "green" and everything to do with the fact that it cost the grocery stores less to supply them.
And if you don't like the sturdy, for sale, "green bags"... don't buy them.
The ordinary bags are still available everywhere I've shopped.
3) Solar hot water.
Nothing to say here but [citation needed].
4) Water.
Might come as a shock to you, but the places where you can put new reservoirs without serious economic impact are pretty limited.
The people and businesses who own property within the proposed basin are going to be annoyed, for starters.
But sure, we could do better with gray water recycling, etc.
On the whole, I'm not sure what your point is here.Final paragraph is probably the smartest - yes, population control is the real answer here.
But in the meantime, here we all are... all 6.5B of us.
I think we need do something in the meantime.Finally, geez, rant much?
I think it's rather ironic that someone who opens up his post being annoyed with people "losing their fucking minds" when environmentalism is mentioned... promptly loses his mind in the body of the post. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869347</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>Sir\_Sri</author>
	<datestamp>1256496300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not true anymore in the 'west' that we give animals leftovers. Or at least not all of them. Though it might actually be better for them than what we actually feed them.  The 'best' part of meat is hardly the most diverse, and packaged vegetables processed together aren't the greatest for all pets either.  It may not be 'grade A' beef, but people, like one of the above posters who loves his dog more than most of humanity, will pay a premium to get fluffy and fido what marketing has told them is the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not true anymore in the 'west ' that we give animals leftovers .
Or at least not all of them .
Though it might actually be better for them than what we actually feed them .
The 'best ' part of meat is hardly the most diverse , and packaged vegetables processed together are n't the greatest for all pets either .
It may not be 'grade A ' beef , but people , like one of the above posters who loves his dog more than most of humanity , will pay a premium to get fluffy and fido what marketing has told them is the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not true anymore in the 'west' that we give animals leftovers.
Or at least not all of them.
Though it might actually be better for them than what we actually feed them.
The 'best' part of meat is hardly the most diverse, and packaged vegetables processed together aren't the greatest for all pets either.
It may not be 'grade A' beef, but people, like one of the above posters who loves his dog more than most of humanity, will pay a premium to get fluffy and fido what marketing has told them is the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874105</id>
	<title>Obvious retort</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1256580180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm Korean, you insensitive clod!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm Korean , you insensitive clod !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm Korean, you insensitive clod!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874907</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting rhetoric - but a bit shortsighted</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't describe a general audience book written by a pair of architects as a "scientific article" even if you're joking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't describe a general audience book written by a pair of architects as a " scientific article " even if you 're joking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't describe a general audience book written by a pair of architects as a "scientific article" even if you're joking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869783</id>
	<title>Totally flawed "study"</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1256588280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Sorry, but that "meat" is animal byproducts that would otherwise end up in a landfill.  Nobody but the family dog or cat is going to eat beef lips, eyelids, rendered gristle, etc.
</p><p>
Also, they leave out the cost of manufacture.  How much does it cost to manufacture a car, and also to build and maintain the related infrastructure (roads, snow clearing, etc) compared to the cost of producing a dog?
</p><p>
Then throw in the environmental impact of consumables.  Gallons of toxic antifreeze, tens or hundreds of gallons of windshield washer literally sprayed all over the environment, contaminated waste engine oil and transmission fluid, etc., asbestos from brake dust and clutch linings, - toxic waste, compared to the organic fertilizer Fido produces from what would otherwise be scrap food.
</p><p>
Contrary to the "study", Fido does NOT eat prime chicken - he gets the left-overs off the carcass, the table scraps, etc., that would otherwise just add up to more organic waste. As such, Fido also reduces the rat problem at landfills, as well as converting waste food into fertilizer if you have a compost heap.
</p><p>
Also, when you need a new car, you have to fork out big bucks.  Need a new dog?  They can make their own replacements, and you can get pretty much any "pure-bred" for free.  I've gotten 2 Newfoundlanders for free (one from a local dog rescue, one as a reward for keeping a lost mutt for two months until the original owners were found, and a St. Bernard for $125 (she was less than a buck a pound, if you're into pricing meat) at the local dog pound.  And a wolf, again for free.
</p><p>
You can eat my dogs when you pry their leash from my cold dead hands.  But make it a fair fight - both of you naked, armed with nothing but your teeth and claws.  My money's on the dogs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a study published in New Scientist , they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year .
It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year .
This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido .
Sorry , but that " meat " is animal byproducts that would otherwise end up in a landfill .
Nobody but the family dog or cat is going to eat beef lips , eyelids , rendered gristle , etc .
Also , they leave out the cost of manufacture .
How much does it cost to manufacture a car , and also to build and maintain the related infrastructure ( roads , snow clearing , etc ) compared to the cost of producing a dog ?
Then throw in the environmental impact of consumables .
Gallons of toxic antifreeze , tens or hundreds of gallons of windshield washer literally sprayed all over the environment , contaminated waste engine oil and transmission fluid , etc. , asbestos from brake dust and clutch linings , - toxic waste , compared to the organic fertilizer Fido produces from what would otherwise be scrap food .
Contrary to the " study " , Fido does NOT eat prime chicken - he gets the left-overs off the carcass , the table scraps , etc. , that would otherwise just add up to more organic waste .
As such , Fido also reduces the rat problem at landfills , as well as converting waste food into fertilizer if you have a compost heap .
Also , when you need a new car , you have to fork out big bucks .
Need a new dog ?
They can make their own replacements , and you can get pretty much any " pure-bred " for free .
I 've gotten 2 Newfoundlanders for free ( one from a local dog rescue , one as a reward for keeping a lost mutt for two months until the original owners were found , and a St. Bernard for $ 125 ( she was less than a buck a pound , if you 're into pricing meat ) at the local dog pound .
And a wolf , again for free .
You can eat my dogs when you pry their leash from my cold dead hands .
But make it a fair fight - both of you naked , armed with nothing but your teeth and claws .
My money 's on the dogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year.
It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year.
This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
Sorry, but that "meat" is animal byproducts that would otherwise end up in a landfill.
Nobody but the family dog or cat is going to eat beef lips, eyelids, rendered gristle, etc.
Also, they leave out the cost of manufacture.
How much does it cost to manufacture a car, and also to build and maintain the related infrastructure (roads, snow clearing, etc) compared to the cost of producing a dog?
Then throw in the environmental impact of consumables.
Gallons of toxic antifreeze, tens or hundreds of gallons of windshield washer literally sprayed all over the environment, contaminated waste engine oil and transmission fluid, etc., asbestos from brake dust and clutch linings, - toxic waste, compared to the organic fertilizer Fido produces from what would otherwise be scrap food.
Contrary to the "study", Fido does NOT eat prime chicken - he gets the left-overs off the carcass, the table scraps, etc., that would otherwise just add up to more organic waste.
As such, Fido also reduces the rat problem at landfills, as well as converting waste food into fertilizer if you have a compost heap.
Also, when you need a new car, you have to fork out big bucks.
Need a new dog?
They can make their own replacements, and you can get pretty much any "pure-bred" for free.
I've gotten 2 Newfoundlanders for free (one from a local dog rescue, one as a reward for keeping a lost mutt for two months until the original owners were found, and a St. Bernard for $125 (she was less than a buck a pound, if you're into pricing meat) at the local dog pound.
And a wolf, again for free.
You can eat my dogs when you pry their leash from my cold dead hands.
But make it a fair fight - both of you naked, armed with nothing but your teeth and claws.
My money's on the dogs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871817</id>
	<title>another take</title>
	<author>FornaxChemica</author>
	<datestamp>1256568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an oversimplification. When you say "people would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals", I know what you're referring to, I <i>may</i> even agree with the idea, but this is <b>not</b> about using ANY kind of prisoner, you're wording it so that it would sound inarguably wrong. The prisoners we're talking about would be the most deviant, vicious kinds: murderers of children, serial killers, those who enjoyed torturing, etc. The question is, in the balance of life, is an innocent sentient being (an animal) worth less than a wicked human being (a murderer)? I'm sorry, but siding automatically with the human being because you're of the same species doesn't seem like the best of arguments to me. For a misanthrope, you seem to hold your species in quite high esteem.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Anyway, some people say this out of sheer anger when reading about animals being tortured, I don't think all of them mean it and would actually support the process throughout. Their ideal being that no living creature should have to suffer for the prosperity and comfort of humanity.</p><p>About the second case, you were probably right to criticize the family if it was indeed a "100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression", I've heard of that before, small children left almost on their own with rottweillers, this is pure madness. I'm not sure though why your co-worker was mad at you instead of the family, might have been something else, I'm kind of careful with stories like that told from a single perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an oversimplification .
When you say " people would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals " , I know what you 're referring to , I may even agree with the idea , but this is not about using ANY kind of prisoner , you 're wording it so that it would sound inarguably wrong .
The prisoners we 're talking about would be the most deviant , vicious kinds : murderers of children , serial killers , those who enjoyed torturing , etc .
The question is , in the balance of life , is an innocent sentient being ( an animal ) worth less than a wicked human being ( a murderer ) ?
I 'm sorry , but siding automatically with the human being because you 're of the same species does n't seem like the best of arguments to me .
For a misanthrope , you seem to hold your species in quite high esteem .
; ) Anyway , some people say this out of sheer anger when reading about animals being tortured , I do n't think all of them mean it and would actually support the process throughout .
Their ideal being that no living creature should have to suffer for the prosperity and comfort of humanity.About the second case , you were probably right to criticize the family if it was indeed a " 100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression " , I 've heard of that before , small children left almost on their own with rottweillers , this is pure madness .
I 'm not sure though why your co-worker was mad at you instead of the family , might have been something else , I 'm kind of careful with stories like that told from a single perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an oversimplification.
When you say "people would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals", I know what you're referring to, I may even agree with the idea, but this is not about using ANY kind of prisoner, you're wording it so that it would sound inarguably wrong.
The prisoners we're talking about would be the most deviant, vicious kinds: murderers of children, serial killers, those who enjoyed torturing, etc.
The question is, in the balance of life, is an innocent sentient being (an animal) worth less than a wicked human being (a murderer)?
I'm sorry, but siding automatically with the human being because you're of the same species doesn't seem like the best of arguments to me.
For a misanthrope, you seem to hold your species in quite high esteem.
;)Anyway, some people say this out of sheer anger when reading about animals being tortured, I don't think all of them mean it and would actually support the process throughout.
Their ideal being that no living creature should have to suffer for the prosperity and comfort of humanity.About the second case, you were probably right to criticize the family if it was indeed a "100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression", I've heard of that before, small children left almost on their own with rottweillers, this is pure madness.
I'm not sure though why your co-worker was mad at you instead of the family, might have been something else, I'm kind of careful with stories like that told from a single perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878453</id>
	<title>Better sugestion: Human Horn!</title>
	<author>SectoidRandom</author>
	<datestamp>1256556420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean seriously compare your average westerner's eco-print to those figures quoted here for our loved ones. I for one believe we find far better places to "make savings" when it comes to our combined foot print!</p><p>And yes, this is sarcasm. (maybe)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean seriously compare your average westerner 's eco-print to those figures quoted here for our loved ones .
I for one believe we find far better places to " make savings " when it comes to our combined foot print ! And yes , this is sarcasm .
( maybe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean seriously compare your average westerner's eco-print to those figures quoted here for our loved ones.
I for one believe we find far better places to "make savings" when it comes to our combined foot print!And yes, this is sarcasm.
(maybe)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871375</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256566320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>120 years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppmv. It has since increased to 380 ppmv. To put this into perspective, during the last ice age the concentration was about 200 ppmv. China and the USA alone emit almost 12 billion tons of CO2 per year, at atmospheric pressure and temperature that's more than 2000 cubic miles.</p><p>The oceans and soil currently are not net emitters of CO2 either, on the contrary, they absorb about 50\% of the CO2 released by mankind's activities. Without them, we would be in a world of hurt already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>120 years ago , the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppmv .
It has since increased to 380 ppmv .
To put this into perspective , during the last ice age the concentration was about 200 ppmv .
China and the USA alone emit almost 12 billion tons of CO2 per year , at atmospheric pressure and temperature that 's more than 2000 cubic miles.The oceans and soil currently are not net emitters of CO2 either , on the contrary , they absorb about 50 \ % of the CO2 released by mankind 's activities .
Without them , we would be in a world of hurt already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>120 years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppmv.
It has since increased to 380 ppmv.
To put this into perspective, during the last ice age the concentration was about 200 ppmv.
China and the USA alone emit almost 12 billion tons of CO2 per year, at atmospheric pressure and temperature that's more than 2000 cubic miles.The oceans and soil currently are not net emitters of CO2 either, on the contrary, they absorb about 50\% of the CO2 released by mankind's activities.
Without them, we would be in a world of hurt already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872183</id>
	<title>Pets for the Wealthy, Food for the Poor</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1256570820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A visiting student from Uganda once told me (I'm an American) that few people back home in Uganda had pets:  too expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A visiting student from Uganda once told me ( I 'm an American ) that few people back home in Uganda had pets : too expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A visiting student from Uganda once told me (I'm an American) that few people back home in Uganda had pets:  too expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870941</id>
	<title>Save the Planet, Eat Your Neighbor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256562240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less people = less people to have pets, drive cars, eat food.<br>Or just commit suicide, bio-engineer a virus... Population control is the key!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less people = less people to have pets , drive cars , eat food.Or just commit suicide , bio-engineer a virus... Population control is the key !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less people = less people to have pets, drive cars, eat food.Or just commit suicide, bio-engineer a virus... Population control is the key!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869487</id>
	<title>But how does...</title>
	<author>lgbr</author>
	<datestamp>1256498040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><div><p>But how does my German Shepherd compare to me?  I certainly emit more than two Toyota SUVs with my CO2 spewing diesel truck, my heated house, my heated office, my lawn mower, my motorcycle... the list goes on. As big as my German Shepherd is, he breathes less than I do and he only eats dog food which is more CO2 friendly than all of the methane-producing-cow products that I eat. Perhaps I should teach him to hunt, that way he can start killing ducks. Or do like the police do and use him to start putting minorities in environmentally friendly prisons. He'll get carbon neutral damn quick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how does my German Shepherd compare to me ?
I certainly emit more than two Toyota SUVs with my CO2 spewing diesel truck , my heated house , my heated office , my lawn mower , my motorcycle... the list goes on .
As big as my German Shepherd is , he breathes less than I do and he only eats dog food which is more CO2 friendly than all of the methane-producing-cow products that I eat .
Perhaps I should teach him to hunt , that way he can start killing ducks .
Or do like the police do and use him to start putting minorities in environmentally friendly prisons .
He 'll get carbon neutral damn quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how does my German Shepherd compare to me?
I certainly emit more than two Toyota SUVs with my CO2 spewing diesel truck, my heated house, my heated office, my lawn mower, my motorcycle... the list goes on.
As big as my German Shepherd is, he breathes less than I do and he only eats dog food which is more CO2 friendly than all of the methane-producing-cow products that I eat.
Perhaps I should teach him to hunt, that way he can start killing ducks.
Or do like the police do and use him to start putting minorities in environmentally friendly prisons.
He'll get carbon neutral damn quick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869565</id>
	<title>Jonathan Swift would be proud</title>
	<author>focoma</author>
	<datestamp>1256498880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, you mean this book <i>isn't</i> satirical?</p><p>Well would you look at that. Radical environmentalism has gone full circle from wanting to give animals human rights to asking people to eat their own beloved pets. I loathe to see the day one of these people comes to power. Who knows when they'll start to take A Modest Proposal seriously. Save the Planet, Eat Your Children!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , you mean this book is n't satirical ? Well would you look at that .
Radical environmentalism has gone full circle from wanting to give animals human rights to asking people to eat their own beloved pets .
I loathe to see the day one of these people comes to power .
Who knows when they 'll start to take A Modest Proposal seriously .
Save the Planet , Eat Your Children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, you mean this book isn't satirical?Well would you look at that.
Radical environmentalism has gone full circle from wanting to give animals human rights to asking people to eat their own beloved pets.
I loathe to see the day one of these people comes to power.
Who knows when they'll start to take A Modest Proposal seriously.
Save the Planet, Eat Your Children!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873031</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256575080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man! you are sooo angry... go eat some fido and have fun!</p><p>Anyway, i agree with you. For 6.5 B person on this planet, there's no point on what you are going to eat. We are already too many, and only a birth control plan, with some kind of consumism-control (people must stop buying everything they see) will have some effect on the future.</p><p>Eating dogs is just a joke. A bad one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man !
you are sooo angry... go eat some fido and have fun ! Anyway , i agree with you .
For 6.5 B person on this planet , there 's no point on what you are going to eat .
We are already too many , and only a birth control plan , with some kind of consumism-control ( people must stop buying everything they see ) will have some effect on the future.Eating dogs is just a joke .
A bad one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man!
you are sooo angry... go eat some fido and have fun!Anyway, i agree with you.
For 6.5 B person on this planet, there's no point on what you are going to eat.
We are already too many, and only a birth control plan, with some kind of consumism-control (people must stop buying everything they see) will have some effect on the future.Eating dogs is just a joke.
A bad one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869473</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256497800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.</p><p>What to do...</p></div><p>Forcibly sterilizing them and their offspring springs to mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.What to do...Forcibly sterilizing them and their offspring springs to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.What to do...Forcibly sterilizing them and their offspring springs to mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873937</id>
	<title>What about girlfriends?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would ask if eating them would help the environment. But this is Slashdot...so never mind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would ask if eating them would help the environment .
But this is Slashdot...so never mind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would ask if eating them would help the environment.
But this is Slashdot...so never mind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869483</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense</title>
	<author>Norsefire</author>
	<datestamp>1256497980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So eat the oxygen producing plants and leave the methane producing cows?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So eat the oxygen producing plants and leave the methane producing cows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So eat the oxygen producing plants and leave the methane producing cows?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871499</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>DuckDodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1256566980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, the professors logic makes perfect sense.  It takes many pounds of vegetables of input into cows and pigs to create a pound of meat.   So vegetarian humans and herbivore animals require far less land use,  and less artificial or organic fertilizer, and less irrigation, and less fuel for farm equipment than non-vegetarian humans and animals that eat a lot of meat.<br> <br>
Beef is my favorite food, and I have a large dog.   That doesn't change the reality that the environmental impact of my lifestyle and the pet I choose to keep is far higher than a vegetarian with a pet hamster.  <br> <br>
Unlike that propaganda piece [i]An Inconvenient Truth[/i], the facts here are pretty clear and difficult to dispute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , the professors logic makes perfect sense .
It takes many pounds of vegetables of input into cows and pigs to create a pound of meat .
So vegetarian humans and herbivore animals require far less land use , and less artificial or organic fertilizer , and less irrigation , and less fuel for farm equipment than non-vegetarian humans and animals that eat a lot of meat .
Beef is my favorite food , and I have a large dog .
That does n't change the reality that the environmental impact of my lifestyle and the pet I choose to keep is far higher than a vegetarian with a pet hamster .
Unlike that propaganda piece [ i ] An Inconvenient Truth [ /i ] , the facts here are pretty clear and difficult to dispute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, the professors logic makes perfect sense.
It takes many pounds of vegetables of input into cows and pigs to create a pound of meat.
So vegetarian humans and herbivore animals require far less land use,  and less artificial or organic fertilizer, and less irrigation, and less fuel for farm equipment than non-vegetarian humans and animals that eat a lot of meat.
Beef is my favorite food, and I have a large dog.
That doesn't change the reality that the environmental impact of my lifestyle and the pet I choose to keep is far higher than a vegetarian with a pet hamster.
Unlike that propaganda piece [i]An Inconvenient Truth[/i], the facts here are pretty clear and difficult to dispute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878153</id>
	<title>Heres a better idea</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1256554620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you environmentalists act like religious zealots, just using Al Gore instead of god, lets just eat all of you and rid The Earth of a group of useless control freaks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you environmentalists act like religious zealots , just using Al Gore instead of god , lets just eat all of you and rid The Earth of a group of useless control freaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you environmentalists act like religious zealots, just using Al Gore instead of god, lets just eat all of you and rid The Earth of a group of useless control freaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872889</id>
	<title>The study doesn't account for all the value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256574240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dogs bring additional value. Mine catch mice and chase away rabbits and squirrels which would destroy my garden. I would have to spend additional money and use additional resources to come up with alternate ways to keep pests away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs bring additional value .
Mine catch mice and chase away rabbits and squirrels which would destroy my garden .
I would have to spend additional money and use additional resources to come up with alternate ways to keep pests away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs bring additional value.
Mine catch mice and chase away rabbits and squirrels which would destroy my garden.
I would have to spend additional money and use additional resources to come up with alternate ways to keep pests away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870027</id>
	<title>mice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256548740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about mice? I need them for my experiments and I'm not going to eat all that cheese in the fridge myself anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about mice ?
I need them for my experiments and I 'm not going to eat all that cheese in the fridge myself anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about mice?
I need them for my experiments and I'm not going to eat all that cheese in the fridge myself anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872697</id>
	<title>Re:10,000km per year?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256573160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's ~6200 miles. I have an '03 with 110000 on it, and that's not atypical at all. That's 18,000 a year. And a dog's diet is 1/3 meat, not 2/3rds, and roughly half that amount total for a medium 50 lb dog. So their SUV example really ends up being wrong for me by about a factor of 12.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ~ 6200 miles .
I have an '03 with 110000 on it , and that 's not atypical at all .
That 's 18,000 a year .
And a dog 's diet is 1/3 meat , not 2/3rds , and roughly half that amount total for a medium 50 lb dog .
So their SUV example really ends up being wrong for me by about a factor of 12 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ~6200 miles.
I have an '03 with 110000 on it, and that's not atypical at all.
That's 18,000 a year.
And a dog's diet is 1/3 meat, not 2/3rds, and roughly half that amount total for a medium 50 lb dog.
So their SUV example really ends up being wrong for me by about a factor of 12.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872271</id>
	<title>Re:Augh! Really bad energy math!</title>
	<author>InsurrctionConsltant</author>
	<datestamp>1256571180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you look at the calculation in detail, they work out the amount of farmland per dog (0.83 hectares), then convert the amount of energy used by an SUV into acres of land, by using THE INTENSITY OF SUNLIGHT on that land surface.</p></div><p>The other thing is that there's a reason we have phrases like "eat your own dogfood". The meat in dog-food is not being farmed specifically for that purpose. It largely consists of the parts of food animals that cannot be sold as meat for humans.</p><p>Overall the use of this meat as dogfood can have no net effect in carbon emissions, because the alternative is to put it in landfill, where it will be swiftly putrified, returning its carbon content to the atmosphere. When it gets eaten, a large percentage of the carbon is temporarily sequestered in the dog, but then gradually released as carbon dioxide, true. In both cases, there is also a fertilisation effect, whereby the nitrogen (and some carbon) in the meat will be fixed by producers in the ecosystem.</p><p>The net carbon emission is the same in either case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you look at the calculation in detail , they work out the amount of farmland per dog ( 0.83 hectares ) , then convert the amount of energy used by an SUV into acres of land , by using THE INTENSITY OF SUNLIGHT on that land surface.The other thing is that there 's a reason we have phrases like " eat your own dogfood " .
The meat in dog-food is not being farmed specifically for that purpose .
It largely consists of the parts of food animals that can not be sold as meat for humans.Overall the use of this meat as dogfood can have no net effect in carbon emissions , because the alternative is to put it in landfill , where it will be swiftly putrified , returning its carbon content to the atmosphere .
When it gets eaten , a large percentage of the carbon is temporarily sequestered in the dog , but then gradually released as carbon dioxide , true .
In both cases , there is also a fertilisation effect , whereby the nitrogen ( and some carbon ) in the meat will be fixed by producers in the ecosystem.The net carbon emission is the same in either case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you look at the calculation in detail, they work out the amount of farmland per dog (0.83 hectares), then convert the amount of energy used by an SUV into acres of land, by using THE INTENSITY OF SUNLIGHT on that land surface.The other thing is that there's a reason we have phrases like "eat your own dogfood".
The meat in dog-food is not being farmed specifically for that purpose.
It largely consists of the parts of food animals that cannot be sold as meat for humans.Overall the use of this meat as dogfood can have no net effect in carbon emissions, because the alternative is to put it in landfill, where it will be swiftly putrified, returning its carbon content to the atmosphere.
When it gets eaten, a large percentage of the carbon is temporarily sequestered in the dog, but then gradually released as carbon dioxide, true.
In both cases, there is also a fertilisation effect, whereby the nitrogen (and some carbon) in the meat will be fixed by producers in the ecosystem.The net carbon emission is the same in either case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870619</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256557380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's almost a truism that every human has a carbon footprint. That every animal does too isn't much of a leap.</p><p>Me, when I'm challenged about my admittedly extravagant number of international flights, I point out the ways I offset it. Very low car usage. No kids. No pets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's almost a truism that every human has a carbon footprint .
That every animal does too is n't much of a leap.Me , when I 'm challenged about my admittedly extravagant number of international flights , I point out the ways I offset it .
Very low car usage .
No kids .
No pets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's almost a truism that every human has a carbon footprint.
That every animal does too isn't much of a leap.Me, when I'm challenged about my admittedly extravagant number of international flights, I point out the ways I offset it.
Very low car usage.
No kids.
No pets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29877669</id>
	<title>Hmm, I want to help but my dog is kind of scrawny.</title>
	<author>Shagggs</author>
	<datestamp>1256552700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we eat the environmental researchers who did this study, seems like that would save loads of resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we eat the environmental researchers who did this study , seems like that would save loads of resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we eat the environmental researchers who did this study, seems like that would save loads of resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871859</id>
	<title>Do we really raise chickens for dogs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if it is right to say that</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "It takes 43.3 square meters of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido."</p><p>I would imagine we don't raise chickens to feed to dogs... in the USA we raise chickens for boneless skinless chicken breasts and then I would imagine dogs end up with the leavings that are not fit for export.  My guess is there is so much "waste" in human food production that we have not really had a lot of motivation to go find more efficient solutions for dogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if it is right to say that         " It takes 43.3 square meters of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year .
This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido .
" I would imagine we do n't raise chickens to feed to dogs... in the USA we raise chickens for boneless skinless chicken breasts and then I would imagine dogs end up with the leavings that are not fit for export .
My guess is there is so much " waste " in human food production that we have not really had a lot of motivation to go find more efficient solutions for dogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if it is right to say that
        "It takes 43.3 square meters of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year.
This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
"I would imagine we don't raise chickens to feed to dogs... in the USA we raise chickens for boneless skinless chicken breasts and then I would imagine dogs end up with the leavings that are not fit for export.
My guess is there is so much "waste" in human food production that we have not really had a lot of motivation to go find more efficient solutions for dogs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869319</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256496060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think when your ultimate goal is to slaughter and consume<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. an animal stops being a "pet". And would sure make an interesting dinner, as your daughter chokes down Fluffy, her pet rabbit.</p></div><p>Don't worry about your daughter now, she in a act of supreme environmental saving. Will eat you after your death.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think when your ultimate goal is to slaughter and consume .. an animal stops being a " pet " .
And would sure make an interesting dinner , as your daughter chokes down Fluffy , her pet rabbit.Do n't worry about your daughter now , she in a act of supreme environmental saving .
Will eat you after your death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think when your ultimate goal is to slaughter and consume .. an animal stops being a "pet".
And would sure make an interesting dinner, as your daughter chokes down Fluffy, her pet rabbit.Don't worry about your daughter now, she in a act of supreme environmental saving.
Will eat you after your death.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878729</id>
	<title>Wild animals are destroying the enviroment!</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1256558340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, what about all the wild animals running around out there? They should have nearly the impact that pets do. Will no one send out the population control specialists to keep their numbers down?<br> <br>

In fact, I adopted my cats from a feral colony, sure I enhanced their lifespans with immunizations and proper nutrition, but really whats the difference between my pets now and the wild animals they were?<br> <br>

Sure one eats food farmed by humans, but the other either steals food farmed by humans (my cats' previous diet) or legally eats from the bounty of nature that humans are trying to preserve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what about all the wild animals running around out there ?
They should have nearly the impact that pets do .
Will no one send out the population control specialists to keep their numbers down ?
In fact , I adopted my cats from a feral colony , sure I enhanced their lifespans with immunizations and proper nutrition , but really whats the difference between my pets now and the wild animals they were ?
Sure one eats food farmed by humans , but the other either steals food farmed by humans ( my cats ' previous diet ) or legally eats from the bounty of nature that humans are trying to preserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what about all the wild animals running around out there?
They should have nearly the impact that pets do.
Will no one send out the population control specialists to keep their numbers down?
In fact, I adopted my cats from a feral colony, sure I enhanced their lifespans with immunizations and proper nutrition, but really whats the difference between my pets now and the wild animals they were?
Sure one eats food farmed by humans, but the other either steals food farmed by humans (my cats' previous diet) or legally eats from the bounty of nature that humans are trying to preserve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869399</id>
	<title>More Pollution is Better</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1256497080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The process of life requires pollution. Not to be graphic, but life literally sustains itself by converting the environment (air, water, food) into pollution. On top of that, creating our comforts and pleasures require additional pollution.

</p><p>The countries that pollute the least in the world are the countries with the shortest lifespans and the harshest living conditions.

</p><p>The trick is not to eliminate pollution, but just remove it so it doesn't harm people. We are already quite effective at that. (And when we aren't it's usually due to a lack of property rights)

</p><p>The longer and more comfortable a human life is, the more pollution is required.

</p><p>The only way to eliminate pollution is to eliminate life itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The process of life requires pollution .
Not to be graphic , but life literally sustains itself by converting the environment ( air , water , food ) into pollution .
On top of that , creating our comforts and pleasures require additional pollution .
The countries that pollute the least in the world are the countries with the shortest lifespans and the harshest living conditions .
The trick is not to eliminate pollution , but just remove it so it does n't harm people .
We are already quite effective at that .
( And when we are n't it 's usually due to a lack of property rights ) The longer and more comfortable a human life is , the more pollution is required .
The only way to eliminate pollution is to eliminate life itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The process of life requires pollution.
Not to be graphic, but life literally sustains itself by converting the environment (air, water, food) into pollution.
On top of that, creating our comforts and pleasures require additional pollution.
The countries that pollute the least in the world are the countries with the shortest lifespans and the harshest living conditions.
The trick is not to eliminate pollution, but just remove it so it doesn't harm people.
We are already quite effective at that.
(And when we aren't it's usually due to a lack of property rights)

The longer and more comfortable a human life is, the more pollution is required.
The only way to eliminate pollution is to eliminate life itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873869</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>mcsynk</author>
	<datestamp>1256579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please take a look at the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/publications\_ipcc\_fourth\_assessment\_report\_wg1\_report\_the\_physical\_science\_basis.htm" title="www.ipcc.ch" rel="nofollow">IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)</a> [www.ipcc.ch] </p><p>On page 4 of the 'summary for policy makers', the graph shows that CO2 is the most significant human produced contributor to radiative forcing.</p><p>I am no expert but I find this report trustworthy and therefore think that CO2 is a pretty good thing to focus on.  Dog ownership is another question!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please take a look at the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report ( AR4 ) [ www.ipcc.ch ] On page 4 of the 'summary for policy makers ' , the graph shows that CO2 is the most significant human produced contributor to radiative forcing.I am no expert but I find this report trustworthy and therefore think that CO2 is a pretty good thing to focus on .
Dog ownership is another question !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please take a look at the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) [www.ipcc.ch] On page 4 of the 'summary for policy makers', the graph shows that CO2 is the most significant human produced contributor to radiative forcing.I am no expert but I find this report trustworthy and therefore think that CO2 is a pretty good thing to focus on.
Dog ownership is another question!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875023</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>outsider007</author>
	<datestamp>1256584260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something you might not have considered is that your father identifies with the dog because like pets, old people are treated as 'disposable' when their health problems raise 'quality of life' concerns. If you've recently encouraged him to make a living will you could have made it a lot worse. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, btw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something you might not have considered is that your father identifies with the dog because like pets , old people are treated as 'disposable ' when their health problems raise 'quality of life ' concerns .
If you 've recently encouraged him to make a living will you could have made it a lot worse .
I 'm not saying you did anything wrong , btw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something you might not have considered is that your father identifies with the dog because like pets, old people are treated as 'disposable' when their health problems raise 'quality of life' concerns.
If you've recently encouraged him to make a living will you could have made it a lot worse.
I'm not saying you did anything wrong, btw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869741</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256587740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Total population and per capita impact are both important, but it's important to understand that different populations have different impacts, and that these differences can be traced to social systems (corporate, state, cultural) which are not rooted in population or individual impact.</p><p>Family size is a product of more than just value systems. And it's also a product of more than just education. It's astonishing to me that family size and poverty (and other forms of oppression) can so clearly be linked, but that those analyzing these links rarely draw meaningful conclusions as to why.</p><p>From an outside perspective, it's easy to say that it's "unwise" for a poor family to increase their burden by raising more and more children, but the fact of the matter is that there is an absolutely practical motivation for a family with limited means to increase its size: more bodies provide more labor. It's the same rationale that businesses use when hiring employees.</p><p>And poor families with many children (which account for the vast majority of what's called "overpopulation", despite being an entirely separate issue), in most conditions, do not produce a proportionately greater impact on the environment. This is because poor people do not create the same impact that wealthy people do.</p><p>I'm *not* arguing that population isn't an issue. Indeed, in a finite system, there is always a maximum population which can be sustained. What I'm arguing is that it's simplistic and wrong to blame population for the excesses of excess, and to heap responsibility on those who are not only unable to curb excess but unable to indulge in it as well.</p><p>In a sense though, all of these can be tied together around the system which produces them all, which is (to oversimplify, myself) global capitalism. A system which promotes and rewards "growth" and swallows the whole world into it... will inevitably produce gluttons and paupers, all of whom are victims in a sense, and all of whom can conveniently blame one another and their personal choices while ignoring the threads that bind them together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Total population and per capita impact are both important , but it 's important to understand that different populations have different impacts , and that these differences can be traced to social systems ( corporate , state , cultural ) which are not rooted in population or individual impact.Family size is a product of more than just value systems .
And it 's also a product of more than just education .
It 's astonishing to me that family size and poverty ( and other forms of oppression ) can so clearly be linked , but that those analyzing these links rarely draw meaningful conclusions as to why.From an outside perspective , it 's easy to say that it 's " unwise " for a poor family to increase their burden by raising more and more children , but the fact of the matter is that there is an absolutely practical motivation for a family with limited means to increase its size : more bodies provide more labor .
It 's the same rationale that businesses use when hiring employees.And poor families with many children ( which account for the vast majority of what 's called " overpopulation " , despite being an entirely separate issue ) , in most conditions , do not produce a proportionately greater impact on the environment .
This is because poor people do not create the same impact that wealthy people do.I 'm * not * arguing that population is n't an issue .
Indeed , in a finite system , there is always a maximum population which can be sustained .
What I 'm arguing is that it 's simplistic and wrong to blame population for the excesses of excess , and to heap responsibility on those who are not only unable to curb excess but unable to indulge in it as well.In a sense though , all of these can be tied together around the system which produces them all , which is ( to oversimplify , myself ) global capitalism .
A system which promotes and rewards " growth " and swallows the whole world into it... will inevitably produce gluttons and paupers , all of whom are victims in a sense , and all of whom can conveniently blame one another and their personal choices while ignoring the threads that bind them together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total population and per capita impact are both important, but it's important to understand that different populations have different impacts, and that these differences can be traced to social systems (corporate, state, cultural) which are not rooted in population or individual impact.Family size is a product of more than just value systems.
And it's also a product of more than just education.
It's astonishing to me that family size and poverty (and other forms of oppression) can so clearly be linked, but that those analyzing these links rarely draw meaningful conclusions as to why.From an outside perspective, it's easy to say that it's "unwise" for a poor family to increase their burden by raising more and more children, but the fact of the matter is that there is an absolutely practical motivation for a family with limited means to increase its size: more bodies provide more labor.
It's the same rationale that businesses use when hiring employees.And poor families with many children (which account for the vast majority of what's called "overpopulation", despite being an entirely separate issue), in most conditions, do not produce a proportionately greater impact on the environment.
This is because poor people do not create the same impact that wealthy people do.I'm *not* arguing that population isn't an issue.
Indeed, in a finite system, there is always a maximum population which can be sustained.
What I'm arguing is that it's simplistic and wrong to blame population for the excesses of excess, and to heap responsibility on those who are not only unable to curb excess but unable to indulge in it as well.In a sense though, all of these can be tied together around the system which produces them all, which is (to oversimplify, myself) global capitalism.
A system which promotes and rewards "growth" and swallows the whole world into it... will inevitably produce gluttons and paupers, all of whom are victims in a sense, and all of whom can conveniently blame one another and their personal choices while ignoring the threads that bind them together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870363</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256553300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a pretty fascinating sentiment coming from "misanthrope101".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pretty fascinating sentiment coming from " misanthrope101 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pretty fascinating sentiment coming from "misanthrope101".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869237</id>
	<title>Sounds like you have a lot of pets...</title>
	<author>rtilghman</author>
	<datestamp>1256495160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I know where I'm having dinner tonight!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>-A Committed Environmentalist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I know where I 'm having dinner tonight !
: ) -A Committed Environmentalist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I know where I'm having dinner tonight!
:)-A Committed Environmentalist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870997</id>
	<title>Re: Eat your dog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256562960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure humans consume more resources than dogs. I'm going to start eating humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure humans consume more resources than dogs .
I 'm going to start eating humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure humans consume more resources than dogs.
I'm going to start eating humans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869603</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Melibeus</author>
	<datestamp>1256499540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In reply to your points,</p><p>1) On CFLs. You have this one right. It's a ery obvious case of greenwash.</p><p>2) Getting plastic bags out of our waste would be a very good thing. I've seen how many end up in the ocean and affect sea life. I agree though that the<br>supermarkets cynical approach is to sell us plastic bags that should be cheaper to make. Today I bought a 'biodegradeable' bag made from corn starch or some such thing for 15c. I can't see how cornstarch is more expensive than using oil to make plastic. Someone is profiteering, supermarkets or bag makers?</p><p>3) I don't see your point with solar hot water systems. My parents had one since the mid 1960's. It was replaced once and has given them hot water for four decades. They don't take much in the way of materials to make. Its only a metal and glass panel on the roof and a tank. The booster uses much less energy since on a cool day it's only usually having to heat the water from 30 or 40 degrees C. Most of the time the problem was that the water would come out TOO hot.</p><p>4) Water scarcity. You obviously don't live in marginal land. The current round of drought in Australia is getting critical. I do agree though that de-salination is not the way to go. Here in Australia we should be pouring less water into cattle, cotton and rice and growing more water efficient crops. Also it's mostly a distribution problem.</p><p>Your conclusion is spot on. Exponential growth in a finite world will lead to catastrophe. As far as I can see there's not a politician on the planet other than the Chinese communist government that have made any attempt to really address that issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In reply to your points,1 ) On CFLs .
You have this one right .
It 's a ery obvious case of greenwash.2 ) Getting plastic bags out of our waste would be a very good thing .
I 've seen how many end up in the ocean and affect sea life .
I agree though that thesupermarkets cynical approach is to sell us plastic bags that should be cheaper to make .
Today I bought a 'biodegradeable ' bag made from corn starch or some such thing for 15c .
I ca n't see how cornstarch is more expensive than using oil to make plastic .
Someone is profiteering , supermarkets or bag makers ? 3 ) I do n't see your point with solar hot water systems .
My parents had one since the mid 1960 's .
It was replaced once and has given them hot water for four decades .
They do n't take much in the way of materials to make .
Its only a metal and glass panel on the roof and a tank .
The booster uses much less energy since on a cool day it 's only usually having to heat the water from 30 or 40 degrees C. Most of the time the problem was that the water would come out TOO hot.4 ) Water scarcity .
You obviously do n't live in marginal land .
The current round of drought in Australia is getting critical .
I do agree though that de-salination is not the way to go .
Here in Australia we should be pouring less water into cattle , cotton and rice and growing more water efficient crops .
Also it 's mostly a distribution problem.Your conclusion is spot on .
Exponential growth in a finite world will lead to catastrophe .
As far as I can see there 's not a politician on the planet other than the Chinese communist government that have made any attempt to really address that issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In reply to your points,1) On CFLs.
You have this one right.
It's a ery obvious case of greenwash.2) Getting plastic bags out of our waste would be a very good thing.
I've seen how many end up in the ocean and affect sea life.
I agree though that thesupermarkets cynical approach is to sell us plastic bags that should be cheaper to make.
Today I bought a 'biodegradeable' bag made from corn starch or some such thing for 15c.
I can't see how cornstarch is more expensive than using oil to make plastic.
Someone is profiteering, supermarkets or bag makers?3) I don't see your point with solar hot water systems.
My parents had one since the mid 1960's.
It was replaced once and has given them hot water for four decades.
They don't take much in the way of materials to make.
Its only a metal and glass panel on the roof and a tank.
The booster uses much less energy since on a cool day it's only usually having to heat the water from 30 or 40 degrees C. Most of the time the problem was that the water would come out TOO hot.4) Water scarcity.
You obviously don't live in marginal land.
The current round of drought in Australia is getting critical.
I do agree though that de-salination is not the way to go.
Here in Australia we should be pouring less water into cattle, cotton and rice and growing more water efficient crops.
Also it's mostly a distribution problem.Your conclusion is spot on.
Exponential growth in a finite world will lead to catastrophe.
As far as I can see there's not a politician on the planet other than the Chinese communist government that have made any attempt to really address that issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29888711</id>
	<title>Obligatory Pratchettism</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1256636040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cut-My-Own-Throat Al-Dibblah in Small gods, IIRC : "Pets can be source of great comfort in times of turmoil. And in times of famine too, of course." Or words to that general effect.<br>I'll try to pick up a Korean cookbook - on my way out of the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut-My-Own-Throat Al-Dibblah in Small gods , IIRC : " Pets can be source of great comfort in times of turmoil .
And in times of famine too , of course .
" Or words to that general effect.I 'll try to pick up a Korean cookbook - on my way out of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut-My-Own-Throat Al-Dibblah in Small gods, IIRC : "Pets can be source of great comfort in times of turmoil.
And in times of famine too, of course.
" Or words to that general effect.I'll try to pick up a Korean cookbook - on my way out of the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870271</id>
	<title>A Modest Proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256551980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the next step is eating our children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the next step is eating our children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the next step is eating our children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29877201</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256550720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We" don't eat is largely subjective.  E.g., where I come from they are actually eaten by people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Nope, we're not particularly poor, but our traditional diet does include things as chicken necks, chicken feet, cow entrails and cow tails as part of the regular food stuffs.  If we didn't eat these things to, say, give them to our pets, then we'd have to produce more chicken breasts and top sirloin to keep our current levels of nutrition.<br>My point is: it's not that your pet has a zero cost, it might be that your culture is so tremendously wasteful already that the cost of your pet *seems* negligible in comparison.  Think about that next time you order a 20 oz. steakhouse thinking you can give the left-overs to Fido<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... If you had ordered the 16 oz. instead and were satisfied, could you still claim that Fido has zero cost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We " do n't eat is largely subjective .
E.g. , where I come from they are actually eaten by people ... Nope , we 're not particularly poor , but our traditional diet does include things as chicken necks , chicken feet , cow entrails and cow tails as part of the regular food stuffs .
If we did n't eat these things to , say , give them to our pets , then we 'd have to produce more chicken breasts and top sirloin to keep our current levels of nutrition.My point is : it 's not that your pet has a zero cost , it might be that your culture is so tremendously wasteful already that the cost of your pet * seems * negligible in comparison .
Think about that next time you order a 20 oz .
steakhouse thinking you can give the left-overs to Fido ... If you had ordered the 16 oz .
instead and were satisfied , could you still claim that Fido has zero cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We" don't eat is largely subjective.
E.g., where I come from they are actually eaten by people ... Nope, we're not particularly poor, but our traditional diet does include things as chicken necks, chicken feet, cow entrails and cow tails as part of the regular food stuffs.
If we didn't eat these things to, say, give them to our pets, then we'd have to produce more chicken breasts and top sirloin to keep our current levels of nutrition.My point is: it's not that your pet has a zero cost, it might be that your culture is so tremendously wasteful already that the cost of your pet *seems* negligible in comparison.
Think about that next time you order a 20 oz.
steakhouse thinking you can give the left-overs to Fido ... If you had ordered the 16 oz.
instead and were satisfied, could you still claim that Fido has zero cost?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869381</id>
	<title>Wouldn't it make more sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256496720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to say "Save the Planet, eat more plants in place of meat?" In terms of efficiency, I bet cows have a larger carbon footprint than my dog, and I'm more likely to eat fewer burgers than take a bite out of Fido...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to say " Save the Planet , eat more plants in place of meat ?
" In terms of efficiency , I bet cows have a larger carbon footprint than my dog , and I 'm more likely to eat fewer burgers than take a bite out of Fido.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to say "Save the Planet, eat more plants in place of meat?
" In terms of efficiency, I bet cows have a larger carbon footprint than my dog, and I'm more likely to eat fewer burgers than take a bite out of Fido...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870147</id>
	<title>Come on people, it's the Dominion Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256550300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a third rate newspaper that only a few people in the South Island read. This article was written to get people riled up since most New Zealander's (especially the wonderful Southlanders) are pet lovers. Many dogs here are working farm dogs too. They pretty much pay for their own food and are far more carbon friendly when compared to the reporters spouting a lot of hot air from their rear spout.<br>I like the comments in the article<br>"According to well published reports, their carbon foot print is 1/4 that of the average politician which is 20 times that of the average citizen. It simply proves that we should eat politicians to save the planet. Lets start with Al Gore, then for the main curse (VEG) Nancy Pelos with a certain person who fly s a big plane all over the country for date nights."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a third rate newspaper that only a few people in the South Island read .
This article was written to get people riled up since most New Zealander 's ( especially the wonderful Southlanders ) are pet lovers .
Many dogs here are working farm dogs too .
They pretty much pay for their own food and are far more carbon friendly when compared to the reporters spouting a lot of hot air from their rear spout.I like the comments in the article " According to well published reports , their carbon foot print is 1/4 that of the average politician which is 20 times that of the average citizen .
It simply proves that we should eat politicians to save the planet .
Lets start with Al Gore , then for the main curse ( VEG ) Nancy Pelos with a certain person who fly s a big plane all over the country for date nights .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a third rate newspaper that only a few people in the South Island read.
This article was written to get people riled up since most New Zealander's (especially the wonderful Southlanders) are pet lovers.
Many dogs here are working farm dogs too.
They pretty much pay for their own food and are far more carbon friendly when compared to the reporters spouting a lot of hot air from their rear spout.I like the comments in the article"According to well published reports, their carbon foot print is 1/4 that of the average politician which is 20 times that of the average citizen.
It simply proves that we should eat politicians to save the planet.
Lets start with Al Gore, then for the main curse (VEG) Nancy Pelos with a certain person who fly s a big plane all over the country for date nights.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870281</id>
	<title>I KNOW! ZOMBIES!</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1256552100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets make everyone into zombies!<br>Zombies have no pets, don't drive cars, don't watch TV...<br>In fact, they go everywhere on foot, and they always use local resources by feeding on human brains - and thereby reducing the number of polluters.</p><p>Zombies would be the ultimate green solution!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets make everyone into zombies ! Zombies have no pets , do n't drive cars , do n't watch TV...In fact , they go everywhere on foot , and they always use local resources by feeding on human brains - and thereby reducing the number of polluters.Zombies would be the ultimate green solution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets make everyone into zombies!Zombies have no pets, don't drive cars, don't watch TV...In fact, they go everywhere on foot, and they always use local resources by feeding on human brains - and thereby reducing the number of polluters.Zombies would be the ultimate green solution!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869719</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>lul\_wat</author>
	<datestamp>1256587440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know why I'd rather the prisoners were used for medical experiments instead of animals? Because prisoners arn't as enthusiastic about licking peanut butter off me</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know why I 'd rather the prisoners were used for medical experiments instead of animals ?
Because prisoners ar n't as enthusiastic about licking peanut butter off me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know why I'd rather the prisoners were used for medical experiments instead of animals?
Because prisoners arn't as enthusiastic about licking peanut butter off me</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869403</id>
	<title>Re:Another suggestion</title>
	<author>adeydas</author>
	<datestamp>1256497080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870807</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256560440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience has been that CFLs don't have significantly longer lives than incandescent bulbs. They've only saved me money for a while because the government has given them away and I've bought a total of four globes since this enviro-madness started. Free is better than cheap. Once I have had to buy my own, any cost savings are going to be in the running costs only, and the prices are still sky high, the quality of the light worse.</p><p>LEDs have truly incredible life. I don't own LED globes yet but I haven't had an LED on a torch die yet. Estimated lifetimes vary from years to decades. Trouble is there's no money in selling globes that don't blow longer term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience has been that CFLs do n't have significantly longer lives than incandescent bulbs .
They 've only saved me money for a while because the government has given them away and I 've bought a total of four globes since this enviro-madness started .
Free is better than cheap .
Once I have had to buy my own , any cost savings are going to be in the running costs only , and the prices are still sky high , the quality of the light worse.LEDs have truly incredible life .
I do n't own LED globes yet but I have n't had an LED on a torch die yet .
Estimated lifetimes vary from years to decades .
Trouble is there 's no money in selling globes that do n't blow longer term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience has been that CFLs don't have significantly longer lives than incandescent bulbs.
They've only saved me money for a while because the government has given them away and I've bought a total of four globes since this enviro-madness started.
Free is better than cheap.
Once I have had to buy my own, any cost savings are going to be in the running costs only, and the prices are still sky high, the quality of the light worse.LEDs have truly incredible life.
I don't own LED globes yet but I haven't had an LED on a torch die yet.
Estimated lifetimes vary from years to decades.
Trouble is there's no money in selling globes that don't blow longer term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869431</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>aws4y</author>
	<datestamp>1256497320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those of you who don't read good he is referring to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Modest\_Proposal" title="wikipedia.org">A Modest Proposal</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you who do n't read good he is referring to A Modest Proposal [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you who don't read good he is referring to A Modest Proposal [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870915</id>
	<title>Carbon footprint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256561820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are they comparing the landusage needed? A car which gets it's gas from biofuels basicly has a footprint of zero (or close to it), so comparing the land needed to run the car compared to a pet is just stupid, and doesn't prove anything. If anything, because all pets run on biomaterial, they are helping to pull co2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into biomaterial, which is mostly stored in solid form.</p><p>Converting everything to energy, and then doing a comparison of the energy alone is just stupid. If you want to compare enviromental impact, calculate how much co2 actually ends up in the atmosphere all things taken into account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are they comparing the landusage needed ?
A car which gets it 's gas from biofuels basicly has a footprint of zero ( or close to it ) , so comparing the land needed to run the car compared to a pet is just stupid , and does n't prove anything .
If anything , because all pets run on biomaterial , they are helping to pull co2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into biomaterial , which is mostly stored in solid form.Converting everything to energy , and then doing a comparison of the energy alone is just stupid .
If you want to compare enviromental impact , calculate how much co2 actually ends up in the atmosphere all things taken into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are they comparing the landusage needed?
A car which gets it's gas from biofuels basicly has a footprint of zero (or close to it), so comparing the land needed to run the car compared to a pet is just stupid, and doesn't prove anything.
If anything, because all pets run on biomaterial, they are helping to pull co2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into biomaterial, which is mostly stored in solid form.Converting everything to energy, and then doing a comparison of the energy alone is just stupid.
If you want to compare enviromental impact, calculate how much co2 actually ends up in the atmosphere all things taken into account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29884127</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the pets and see its effect</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1256659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we shouldn't try and save resources because you personally haven't the self control not to go out and waste resources elsewhere? Couldn't you read a library book, do some gardening, organise some local fruit harvesting or something instead - it's not obligatory to drive your car around when you've some spare time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we should n't try and save resources because you personally have n't the self control not to go out and waste resources elsewhere ?
Could n't you read a library book , do some gardening , organise some local fruit harvesting or something instead - it 's not obligatory to drive your car around when you 've some spare time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we shouldn't try and save resources because you personally haven't the self control not to go out and waste resources elsewhere?
Couldn't you read a library book, do some gardening, organise some local fruit harvesting or something instead - it's not obligatory to drive your car around when you've some spare time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869455</id>
	<title>Interesting rhetoric - but a bit shortsighted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256497620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I'm surprised the authors stopped so early in their quest of comparing apples to oranges (with meaningless criteria, as it has been pointed out by others slashdot users). The next logical step would have been to put into perspective the energy footprint of children. Think of the children - and of how many 4WD vehicles you could drive for the same energetic price ! Well, they probably saved this metric for their next scientific article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm surprised the authors stopped so early in their quest of comparing apples to oranges ( with meaningless criteria , as it has been pointed out by others slashdot users ) .
The next logical step would have been to put into perspective the energy footprint of children .
Think of the children - and of how many 4WD vehicles you could drive for the same energetic price !
Well , they probably saved this metric for their next scientific article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm surprised the authors stopped so early in their quest of comparing apples to oranges (with meaningless criteria, as it has been pointed out by others slashdot users).
The next logical step would have been to put into perspective the energy footprint of children.
Think of the children - and of how many 4WD vehicles you could drive for the same energetic price !
Well, they probably saved this metric for their next scientific article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869729</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>Amiralul</author>
	<datestamp>1256587620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about calculating the environmental damage done by printing this stupid book?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about calculating the environmental damage done by printing this stupid book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about calculating the environmental damage done by printing this stupid book?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870817</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Bongo</author>
	<datestamp>1256560620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm fucking fed up with people absolutely losing their minds whenever the word "environment" is mentioned. Suddenly they're willing to buy stupid shit that makes no sense. People lose all objectivity, all ability to add up total cost of ownership and conversion and turn into sock puppets for large corps who are selling them fairytales about being green.</p><p>Shit like this wouldn't fly with a sane rationed well educated public:</p></div><p>Thanks for your post, very much agree. At the end of the day, if there are more people than the means to support them <i>with capacity to spare</i> then there's a problem. I say that because the "too much waste" argument is backwards. We should be able to waste lots, as that is a sign that we have plenty of spare capacity to work with, that we have the spare raw materials to go out and invent new stuff. It is about having backups and spares. I mean, I have several backup disks, instead of one I have four--is that waste? Or is that resilience and "sustainability" of my data?</p><p>The people who go for the "too much waste" argument are basically coming from the view that "humans are selfish and greedy". Well, there is some truth in that, but it has little to do with the environmental system, a system where multiple species compete, and you know, eat each other. That's how life works. </p><p>Our problem is that perhaps we have more people than the systems to support them. But it is a timing issue. More people means more brains and greater concentrations of people which leads to advancements in local culture (poor rural people have big families, educated people in Western cities have fewer children, I for one have none and am married and 40). The advancements mean that those parts of the world will continue to develop and who knows, we might all be running off of Chinese fusion reactors one day. </p><p>Our task is just to get to the next level before we die on this level. Sure, people can spiritually evolve, become less greedy, less selfish, less concerned with material wealth, but make no mistake--and this is the mistake most extreme environmentalists make--our present world and freedoms are <b>built</b> on material prosperity. If you reduce material prosperity, you throw culture back to an earlier period. How far back depends on how bad it gets. Want to go back to those times when women were possessions and slavery was an essential and natural part of the economy? Environmentalists have no clue about this. And the first thing to suffer will be the environment. Older periods were also periods of greater war and even greater selfishness. Slavery, racism, brutality, and cut down every tree in sight.</p><p>We need more technologies that allow us to do more with less, not less technology. We need ways to support twenty billion people, so that everyone is in such comfort materially that they never need to reach ten billion. So that everyone's material needs are so satisfied that they have time to turn their minds to higher aspirations, so that we can all afford to be loving to our neighbour, and to feel common human bond of humanity. </p><p>We just need the technology: mass produce/grow meat in labs; super materials to build very high to house everyone on a small footprint; virtually unlimited energy, either nuclear or hydrocarbons from the other planets; free flow of information so every individual is highly educated and none will remain trapped in fundie terrorist breeding grounds; cities architected to have multiple backup systems to withstand any sudden natural climate shifts; the list goes on.</p><p>Greenies seem to believe that we are all too selfish or too ignorant--we'd rather have our furry pet, or we'd rather not know what it really costs to feed--but even if we know that, what difference does it make? We have <b>always</b> had to face environmental and resource issues, just like every other species does, all the time. What we need are solutions to the problem of how to survive. Greed has little to do with it. If I forsake my lunch, the food doesn't automatically appear on the plate of some African kid. If I flush the toilet less, the water doesn't rematerialize in Namibia. The problem isn't that I have it, the problem is that they don't have it. So should I feel guilty? Or should somebody invent some technology?</p><p>Greenies are inherently against "technical fixes". But we've actually progressed 100,000 years using "technical fixes". Technical, technique, the art of making stuff. If we knew a better way to do it, we'd be doing it. It isn't because we're greedy that we don't--greed is just a form of aspiration, a desire for a better future. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fucking fed up with people absolutely losing their minds whenever the word " environment " is mentioned .
Suddenly they 're willing to buy stupid shit that makes no sense .
People lose all objectivity , all ability to add up total cost of ownership and conversion and turn into sock puppets for large corps who are selling them fairytales about being green.Shit like this would n't fly with a sane rationed well educated public : Thanks for your post , very much agree .
At the end of the day , if there are more people than the means to support them with capacity to spare then there 's a problem .
I say that because the " too much waste " argument is backwards .
We should be able to waste lots , as that is a sign that we have plenty of spare capacity to work with , that we have the spare raw materials to go out and invent new stuff .
It is about having backups and spares .
I mean , I have several backup disks , instead of one I have four--is that waste ?
Or is that resilience and " sustainability " of my data ? The people who go for the " too much waste " argument are basically coming from the view that " humans are selfish and greedy " .
Well , there is some truth in that , but it has little to do with the environmental system , a system where multiple species compete , and you know , eat each other .
That 's how life works .
Our problem is that perhaps we have more people than the systems to support them .
But it is a timing issue .
More people means more brains and greater concentrations of people which leads to advancements in local culture ( poor rural people have big families , educated people in Western cities have fewer children , I for one have none and am married and 40 ) .
The advancements mean that those parts of the world will continue to develop and who knows , we might all be running off of Chinese fusion reactors one day .
Our task is just to get to the next level before we die on this level .
Sure , people can spiritually evolve , become less greedy , less selfish , less concerned with material wealth , but make no mistake--and this is the mistake most extreme environmentalists make--our present world and freedoms are built on material prosperity .
If you reduce material prosperity , you throw culture back to an earlier period .
How far back depends on how bad it gets .
Want to go back to those times when women were possessions and slavery was an essential and natural part of the economy ?
Environmentalists have no clue about this .
And the first thing to suffer will be the environment .
Older periods were also periods of greater war and even greater selfishness .
Slavery , racism , brutality , and cut down every tree in sight.We need more technologies that allow us to do more with less , not less technology .
We need ways to support twenty billion people , so that everyone is in such comfort materially that they never need to reach ten billion .
So that everyone 's material needs are so satisfied that they have time to turn their minds to higher aspirations , so that we can all afford to be loving to our neighbour , and to feel common human bond of humanity .
We just need the technology : mass produce/grow meat in labs ; super materials to build very high to house everyone on a small footprint ; virtually unlimited energy , either nuclear or hydrocarbons from the other planets ; free flow of information so every individual is highly educated and none will remain trapped in fundie terrorist breeding grounds ; cities architected to have multiple backup systems to withstand any sudden natural climate shifts ; the list goes on.Greenies seem to believe that we are all too selfish or too ignorant--we 'd rather have our furry pet , or we 'd rather not know what it really costs to feed--but even if we know that , what difference does it make ?
We have always had to face environmental and resource issues , just like every other species does , all the time .
What we need are solutions to the problem of how to survive .
Greed has little to do with it .
If I forsake my lunch , the food does n't automatically appear on the plate of some African kid .
If I flush the toilet less , the water does n't rematerialize in Namibia .
The problem is n't that I have it , the problem is that they do n't have it .
So should I feel guilty ?
Or should somebody invent some technology ? Greenies are inherently against " technical fixes " .
But we 've actually progressed 100,000 years using " technical fixes " .
Technical , technique , the art of making stuff .
If we knew a better way to do it , we 'd be doing it .
It is n't because we 're greedy that we do n't--greed is just a form of aspiration , a desire for a better future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fucking fed up with people absolutely losing their minds whenever the word "environment" is mentioned.
Suddenly they're willing to buy stupid shit that makes no sense.
People lose all objectivity, all ability to add up total cost of ownership and conversion and turn into sock puppets for large corps who are selling them fairytales about being green.Shit like this wouldn't fly with a sane rationed well educated public:Thanks for your post, very much agree.
At the end of the day, if there are more people than the means to support them with capacity to spare then there's a problem.
I say that because the "too much waste" argument is backwards.
We should be able to waste lots, as that is a sign that we have plenty of spare capacity to work with, that we have the spare raw materials to go out and invent new stuff.
It is about having backups and spares.
I mean, I have several backup disks, instead of one I have four--is that waste?
Or is that resilience and "sustainability" of my data?The people who go for the "too much waste" argument are basically coming from the view that "humans are selfish and greedy".
Well, there is some truth in that, but it has little to do with the environmental system, a system where multiple species compete, and you know, eat each other.
That's how life works.
Our problem is that perhaps we have more people than the systems to support them.
But it is a timing issue.
More people means more brains and greater concentrations of people which leads to advancements in local culture (poor rural people have big families, educated people in Western cities have fewer children, I for one have none and am married and 40).
The advancements mean that those parts of the world will continue to develop and who knows, we might all be running off of Chinese fusion reactors one day.
Our task is just to get to the next level before we die on this level.
Sure, people can spiritually evolve, become less greedy, less selfish, less concerned with material wealth, but make no mistake--and this is the mistake most extreme environmentalists make--our present world and freedoms are built on material prosperity.
If you reduce material prosperity, you throw culture back to an earlier period.
How far back depends on how bad it gets.
Want to go back to those times when women were possessions and slavery was an essential and natural part of the economy?
Environmentalists have no clue about this.
And the first thing to suffer will be the environment.
Older periods were also periods of greater war and even greater selfishness.
Slavery, racism, brutality, and cut down every tree in sight.We need more technologies that allow us to do more with less, not less technology.
We need ways to support twenty billion people, so that everyone is in such comfort materially that they never need to reach ten billion.
So that everyone's material needs are so satisfied that they have time to turn their minds to higher aspirations, so that we can all afford to be loving to our neighbour, and to feel common human bond of humanity.
We just need the technology: mass produce/grow meat in labs; super materials to build very high to house everyone on a small footprint; virtually unlimited energy, either nuclear or hydrocarbons from the other planets; free flow of information so every individual is highly educated and none will remain trapped in fundie terrorist breeding grounds; cities architected to have multiple backup systems to withstand any sudden natural climate shifts; the list goes on.Greenies seem to believe that we are all too selfish or too ignorant--we'd rather have our furry pet, or we'd rather not know what it really costs to feed--but even if we know that, what difference does it make?
We have always had to face environmental and resource issues, just like every other species does, all the time.
What we need are solutions to the problem of how to survive.
Greed has little to do with it.
If I forsake my lunch, the food doesn't automatically appear on the plate of some African kid.
If I flush the toilet less, the water doesn't rematerialize in Namibia.
The problem isn't that I have it, the problem is that they don't have it.
So should I feel guilty?
Or should somebody invent some technology?Greenies are inherently against "technical fixes".
But we've actually progressed 100,000 years using "technical fixes".
Technical, technique, the art of making stuff.
If we knew a better way to do it, we'd be doing it.
It isn't because we're greedy that we don't--greed is just a form of aspiration, a desire for a better future. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869269</id>
	<title>Calm down guys</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256495580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most ppl above me seem to be freaking out like hicks thinking the government is coming to take their guns. Its a joke guys. Its kind of interesting but they can't srsly suggest eating our pets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ppl above me seem to be freaking out like hicks thinking the government is coming to take their guns .
Its a joke guys .
Its kind of interesting but they ca n't srsly suggest eating our pets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most ppl above me seem to be freaking out like hicks thinking the government is coming to take their guns.
Its a joke guys.
Its kind of interesting but they can't srsly suggest eating our pets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872857</id>
	<title>Save the Planet, Save the Dog...</title>
	<author>daninaustin</author>
	<datestamp>1256574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Save the planet
Save the dog
Eat the environmentalists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Save the planet Save the dog Eat the environmentalists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Save the planet
Save the dog
Eat the environmentalists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869559</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256498700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:<br><i><br>They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to <b>build</b> and fuel it).<br></i></p><p>My guess is that <i>building</i> and <i>producing</i> the vehicle are synonymous.</p><p>Yes, it would be good to see how they arrived at the figures - my guess is you could get those calculations if you bought the book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser , driven 10,000km a year , which uses 55.1 gigajoules ( the energy used to build and fuel it ) .My guess is that building and producing the vehicle are synonymous.Yes , it would be good to see how they arrived at the figures - my guess is you could get those calculations if you bought the book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it).My guess is that building and producing the vehicle are synonymous.Yes, it would be good to see how they arrived at the figures - my guess is you could get those calculations if you bought the book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869899</id>
	<title>My dog wants steak!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256590020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if they took into consideration that dogs often eat scrap/waste meat and not prime ribs. I would assume that most of the meat fed to dogs and cats is that which would otherwise be wasted or turned into hot dogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they took into consideration that dogs often eat scrap/waste meat and not prime ribs .
I would assume that most of the meat fed to dogs and cats is that which would otherwise be wasted or turned into hot dogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they took into consideration that dogs often eat scrap/waste meat and not prime ribs.
I would assume that most of the meat fed to dogs and cats is that which would otherwise be wasted or turned into hot dogs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869545</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256498640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then don't forget to factor in the carbon emissions of the pets as well. They're constantly spewing CO2, just like your SUV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do n't forget to factor in the carbon emissions of the pets as well .
They 're constantly spewing CO2 , just like your SUV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then don't forget to factor in the carbon emissions of the pets as well.
They're constantly spewing CO2, just like your SUV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870489</id>
	<title>wait!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256554860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hold on a sec......did anyone consider having it all? i mean why not raise rabbits and stuff and then feed them to your dog?! then you can still have all those furry friends and offset your dogs pollution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hold on a sec......did anyone consider having it all ?
i mean why not raise rabbits and stuff and then feed them to your dog ? !
then you can still have all those furry friends and offset your dogs pollution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hold on a sec......did anyone consider having it all?
i mean why not raise rabbits and stuff and then feed them to your dog?!
then you can still have all those furry friends and offset your dogs pollution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870335</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>kayoshiii</author>
	<datestamp>1256553000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes and no.... Quite frankly if you want to deny carbon dioxide is what we should focus on then you should perhaps take it to the scientific community and come up with a model for climate that doesn't take human CO2 emissions into account and can explain temperature patterns since ~1975.<br><br>Since about 1970 the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 300ppm its now up around 370-380 ppm. In that time there hasn't been a significant increase in natural production of CO2 and an overall increase of CO2 by about 33\%. That is a no minuscule amount. While your assertion that the natural world produces a lot more carbon dioxide than humans do is correct you are not taking into account that the natural world in general also sinks that carbon dioxide. The amount that humans produce doesn't need to be that big it just has to be big enough to unbalance the system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no.... Quite frankly if you want to deny carbon dioxide is what we should focus on then you should perhaps take it to the scientific community and come up with a model for climate that does n't take human CO2 emissions into account and can explain temperature patterns since ~ 1975.Since about 1970 the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 300ppm its now up around 370-380 ppm .
In that time there has n't been a significant increase in natural production of CO2 and an overall increase of CO2 by about 33 \ % .
That is a no minuscule amount .
While your assertion that the natural world produces a lot more carbon dioxide than humans do is correct you are not taking into account that the natural world in general also sinks that carbon dioxide .
The amount that humans produce does n't need to be that big it just has to be big enough to unbalance the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.... Quite frankly if you want to deny carbon dioxide is what we should focus on then you should perhaps take it to the scientific community and come up with a model for climate that doesn't take human CO2 emissions into account and can explain temperature patterns since ~1975.Since about 1970 the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 300ppm its now up around 370-380 ppm.
In that time there hasn't been a significant increase in natural production of CO2 and an overall increase of CO2 by about 33\%.
That is a no minuscule amount.
While your assertion that the natural world produces a lot more carbon dioxide than humans do is correct you are not taking into account that the natural world in general also sinks that carbon dioxide.
The amount that humans produce doesn't need to be that big it just has to be big enough to unbalance the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209</id>
	<title>Environmentalist nonsense</title>
	<author>Maimun</author>
	<datestamp>1256494860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This new environmentalist religion is going too far!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This new environmentalist religion is going too far !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This new environmentalist religion is going too far!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873047</id>
	<title>Common Sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look - the article/study is a ripe target - obviously so.</p><p>Yet, I find it does have some value.  We take a lot of things for granted - including a normative household that includes a few pets.  Those pets are often indulged more, and receive better health care than, our homeless (many of whom are veterans).  There's no charter that includes a certain standard of living / provision as a 'right' - quite the opposite.</p><p>So, looking at the environmental effects of pet ownership individually and especially globally - is a worthwhile study.</p><p>Toward the comments on Alternative Energy Heating / Systems - the North American technologies are very rudimentary and DIY - thus the inefficiency.  German Solar Systems (a country with 30+ years of residential solar experience) are vastly more efficient - and well worth the environmental and economic incentives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look - the article/study is a ripe target - obviously so.Yet , I find it does have some value .
We take a lot of things for granted - including a normative household that includes a few pets .
Those pets are often indulged more , and receive better health care than , our homeless ( many of whom are veterans ) .
There 's no charter that includes a certain standard of living / provision as a 'right ' - quite the opposite.So , looking at the environmental effects of pet ownership individually and especially globally - is a worthwhile study.Toward the comments on Alternative Energy Heating / Systems - the North American technologies are very rudimentary and DIY - thus the inefficiency .
German Solar Systems ( a country with 30 + years of residential solar experience ) are vastly more efficient - and well worth the environmental and economic incentives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look - the article/study is a ripe target - obviously so.Yet, I find it does have some value.
We take a lot of things for granted - including a normative household that includes a few pets.
Those pets are often indulged more, and receive better health care than, our homeless (many of whom are veterans).
There's no charter that includes a certain standard of living / provision as a 'right' - quite the opposite.So, looking at the environmental effects of pet ownership individually and especially globally - is a worthwhile study.Toward the comments on Alternative Energy Heating / Systems - the North American technologies are very rudimentary and DIY - thus the inefficiency.
German Solar Systems (a country with 30+ years of residential solar experience) are vastly more efficient - and well worth the environmental and economic incentives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869645</id>
	<title>Hot dogs ??!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256500200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont you people already eat hot dogs ?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont you people already eat hot dogs ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont you people already eat hot dogs ?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871951</id>
	<title>Hamsters vs TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple solution, then.  Get some crazy, hyperactive hamsters (roborovskis, for instance!) and give them a hamster house that looks like a TV.  Then just watch them for entertainment.</p><p>They can do silly things like this:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRH50fvHWA" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRH50fvHWA</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Funnier and with more personality than lots of stuff on TV.</p><p>Problem solved.</p><p>Hamsters like to muck about at night time, which would seem to make them well suited as a geek pet.  One day I'll try this theory out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple solution , then .
Get some crazy , hyperactive hamsters ( roborovskis , for instance !
) and give them a hamster house that looks like a TV .
Then just watch them for entertainment.They can do silly things like this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = YXRH50fvHWA [ youtube.com ] Funnier and with more personality than lots of stuff on TV.Problem solved.Hamsters like to muck about at night time , which would seem to make them well suited as a geek pet .
One day I 'll try this theory out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple solution, then.
Get some crazy, hyperactive hamsters (roborovskis, for instance!
) and give them a hamster house that looks like a TV.
Then just watch them for entertainment.They can do silly things like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRH50fvHWA [youtube.com]Funnier and with more personality than lots of stuff on TV.Problem solved.Hamsters like to muck about at night time, which would seem to make them well suited as a geek pet.
One day I'll try this theory out...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869631</id>
	<title>Their "Pollution"</title>
	<author>kwiqsilver</author>
	<datestamp>1256499840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For their measurement of "pollution" they talk about CO2 emissions and [anthropomorphic] global warming.
</p><p>After mathematicians showed the hockey graph was bogus, scientists who contributed to the IPCC report claimed their work was distorted by the politicians, EPA scientists reported that the EPA was suppressing any dissenting opinion, a growing number of scientists in relevant fields have publicly stated that they were pressured into supporting the theory, and...oh yeah...the earth cooled over the last decade in complete defiance of what the global warming alarmists' models predicted, why do people still worry about CO2? There are plenty of real toxins out there, with real scientific proof behind them, polluting the world. Isn't it time we worried about them instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For their measurement of " pollution " they talk about CO2 emissions and [ anthropomorphic ] global warming .
After mathematicians showed the hockey graph was bogus , scientists who contributed to the IPCC report claimed their work was distorted by the politicians , EPA scientists reported that the EPA was suppressing any dissenting opinion , a growing number of scientists in relevant fields have publicly stated that they were pressured into supporting the theory , and...oh yeah...the earth cooled over the last decade in complete defiance of what the global warming alarmists ' models predicted , why do people still worry about CO2 ?
There are plenty of real toxins out there , with real scientific proof behind them , polluting the world .
Is n't it time we worried about them instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For their measurement of "pollution" they talk about CO2 emissions and [anthropomorphic] global warming.
After mathematicians showed the hockey graph was bogus, scientists who contributed to the IPCC report claimed their work was distorted by the politicians, EPA scientists reported that the EPA was suppressing any dissenting opinion, a growing number of scientists in relevant fields have publicly stated that they were pressured into supporting the theory, and...oh yeah...the earth cooled over the last decade in complete defiance of what the global warming alarmists' models predicted, why do people still worry about CO2?
There are plenty of real toxins out there, with real scientific proof behind them, polluting the world.
Isn't it time we worried about them instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872367</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1256571660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dogs are bred to be loyal, selfless, and playful; people are bred to be selfish and serious. It's not surprising that people like dogs better than humans, and though it is somewhat paradoxical that dogs like people better than dogs, it's mainly because we have all the food.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs are bred to be loyal , selfless , and playful ; people are bred to be selfish and serious .
It 's not surprising that people like dogs better than humans , and though it is somewhat paradoxical that dogs like people better than dogs , it 's mainly because we have all the food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs are bred to be loyal, selfless, and playful; people are bred to be selfish and serious.
It's not surprising that people like dogs better than humans, and though it is somewhat paradoxical that dogs like people better than dogs, it's mainly because we have all the food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872023</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're post was pretty good until the last paragraph. With that paragraph you fell into the classic fallacy that Malthus used a couple hundred years ago. You completely lost your "objectivity."</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're post was pretty good until the last paragraph .
With that paragraph you fell into the classic fallacy that Malthus used a couple hundred years ago .
You completely lost your " objectivity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're post was pretty good until the last paragraph.
With that paragraph you fell into the classic fallacy that Malthus used a couple hundred years ago.
You completely lost your "objectivity.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869669</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>MosesJones</author>
	<datestamp>1256500380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets break down your "mentalism".  I'm not going to argue global warming as I'm sure you think its an evil hoax, so lets just do basic science and economics</p><p> <i>1) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology "for the environment" (no it's not just because there's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price, honest it's not). Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.</i> </p><p>Lots of parts of the US, California for instance, and parts of Europe (UK) have or will have issues with electricity supply.  Light bulbs are quite a part of that consumption this makes electricity a scare resource (excluding its environmental impact) by having things like energy standards against TVs, cookers and indeed lightbulbs you ensure that this scarce resource isn't wasted.  So yes LED technology might be better but the point is that the old technology was certainly worse.  Thus by making people use energy efficient devices (including lightbulbs) you actually stop things like rolling brown outs etc.</p><p> <i>2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away. Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail. Fucking hypocrites!</i> </p><p>Now again putting away the dead dolphins and concentrating on the costs of landfill and the belief that you don't want to live in a socialist country this switch again makes sense.  What you are given a choice between is a poor product for free (socialism) or paying a market price for something that lasts longer and has more value (capitalism).  So its not enviromental nutters its just plain old capitalism at work.</p><p> <i>3) Solar hot water systems that cost more environmentally and financially to produce, install, run maintain than their conventional counterparts, often require that they be supplemented/boosted by a conventional heater (so net negative gain in terms of production). Honest it's not about selling shit people don't need!</i> <br>Now the Solar hot water systems I know about (for instance the ones that I've seen down here in Australia) are definately nothing like this and are for large parts of the year totally self sustaining.  Some of them are pretty damn technically simple (black pipes on the roof) with very little cost of production.  If you aren't forced to use these however what is your problem?  Its capitalism at work again, the latest Ferrari is a ruddy expensive car, has rubbish amounts of space and sits only two people, why on earth would people pay over the odds when they could just get a truck?  The majority of solar water systems sold in the right markets (i.e. hot countries) and geothermal systems in the right countries (e.g. Iceland) are much cheaper to run than conventional systems, sure some people put the system in the wrong place (e.g. a solar system in Ireland) but those things happen all the time.  Still I could generously give you that some environmental people are a bit silly (David Cameron and his windmill springs to mind).</p><p> <i>4) Water conservation and rationing. What a fucking joke. It's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so. Water is not scarce on this planet. It recycles well if you don't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals. The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet. Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we weren't so skitish about grey water. Water as a scarce resource, and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infr</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets break down your " mentalism " .
I 'm not going to argue global warming as I 'm sure you think its an evil hoax , so lets just do basic science and economics 1 ) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology " for the environment " ( no it 's not just because there 's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price , honest it 's not ) .
Never mind that LED technology has much more potential .
Lots of parts of the US , California for instance , and parts of Europe ( UK ) have or will have issues with electricity supply .
Light bulbs are quite a part of that consumption this makes electricity a scare resource ( excluding its environmental impact ) by having things like energy standards against TVs , cookers and indeed lightbulbs you ensure that this scarce resource is n't wasted .
So yes LED technology might be better but the point is that the old technology was certainly worse .
Thus by making people use energy efficient devices ( including lightbulbs ) you actually stop things like rolling brown outs etc .
2 ) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable " green " " enviro " bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away .
Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we could n't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail .
Fucking hypocrites !
Now again putting away the dead dolphins and concentrating on the costs of landfill and the belief that you do n't want to live in a socialist country this switch again makes sense .
What you are given a choice between is a poor product for free ( socialism ) or paying a market price for something that lasts longer and has more value ( capitalism ) .
So its not enviromental nutters its just plain old capitalism at work .
3 ) Solar hot water systems that cost more environmentally and financially to produce , install , run maintain than their conventional counterparts , often require that they be supplemented/boosted by a conventional heater ( so net negative gain in terms of production ) .
Honest it 's not about selling shit people do n't need !
Now the Solar hot water systems I know about ( for instance the ones that I 've seen down here in Australia ) are definately nothing like this and are for large parts of the year totally self sustaining .
Some of them are pretty damn technically simple ( black pipes on the roof ) with very little cost of production .
If you are n't forced to use these however what is your problem ?
Its capitalism at work again , the latest Ferrari is a ruddy expensive car , has rubbish amounts of space and sits only two people , why on earth would people pay over the odds when they could just get a truck ?
The majority of solar water systems sold in the right markets ( i.e .
hot countries ) and geothermal systems in the right countries ( e.g .
Iceland ) are much cheaper to run than conventional systems , sure some people put the system in the wrong place ( e.g .
a solar system in Ireland ) but those things happen all the time .
Still I could generously give you that some environmental people are a bit silly ( David Cameron and his windmill springs to mind ) .
4 ) Water conservation and rationing .
What a fucking joke .
It 's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so .
Water is not scarce on this planet .
It recycles well if you do n't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals .
The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet .
Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we were n't so skitish about grey water .
Water as a scarce resource , and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets break down your "mentalism".
I'm not going to argue global warming as I'm sure you think its an evil hoax, so lets just do basic science and economics 1) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology "for the environment" (no it's not just because there's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price, honest it's not).
Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.
Lots of parts of the US, California for instance, and parts of Europe (UK) have or will have issues with electricity supply.
Light bulbs are quite a part of that consumption this makes electricity a scare resource (excluding its environmental impact) by having things like energy standards against TVs, cookers and indeed lightbulbs you ensure that this scarce resource isn't wasted.
So yes LED technology might be better but the point is that the old technology was certainly worse.
Thus by making people use energy efficient devices (including lightbulbs) you actually stop things like rolling brown outs etc.
2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away.
Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail.
Fucking hypocrites!
Now again putting away the dead dolphins and concentrating on the costs of landfill and the belief that you don't want to live in a socialist country this switch again makes sense.
What you are given a choice between is a poor product for free (socialism) or paying a market price for something that lasts longer and has more value (capitalism).
So its not enviromental nutters its just plain old capitalism at work.
3) Solar hot water systems that cost more environmentally and financially to produce, install, run maintain than their conventional counterparts, often require that they be supplemented/boosted by a conventional heater (so net negative gain in terms of production).
Honest it's not about selling shit people don't need!
Now the Solar hot water systems I know about (for instance the ones that I've seen down here in Australia) are definately nothing like this and are for large parts of the year totally self sustaining.
Some of them are pretty damn technically simple (black pipes on the roof) with very little cost of production.
If you aren't forced to use these however what is your problem?
Its capitalism at work again, the latest Ferrari is a ruddy expensive car, has rubbish amounts of space and sits only two people, why on earth would people pay over the odds when they could just get a truck?
The majority of solar water systems sold in the right markets (i.e.
hot countries) and geothermal systems in the right countries (e.g.
Iceland) are much cheaper to run than conventional systems, sure some people put the system in the wrong place (e.g.
a solar system in Ireland) but those things happen all the time.
Still I could generously give you that some environmental people are a bit silly (David Cameron and his windmill springs to mind).
4) Water conservation and rationing.
What a fucking joke.
It's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so.
Water is not scarce on this planet.
It recycles well if you don't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals.
The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet.
Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we weren't so skitish about grey water.
Water as a scarce resource, and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874285</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1256581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Cities are experimenting with turning dog wastes into both biofuel and electricity. Give me back my carbon tax credit, you ignorant clod!
</p><p>
The dog is a 100\% organic heater, and applies its warmth in a more efficient, directed fashion than space heaters (warming my bed or my lap, rather than the walls and ceiling). Give me back my carbon tax credit, you ignorant clod!
</p><p>
In Soviet Russia, carbon taxes YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cities are experimenting with turning dog wastes into both biofuel and electricity .
Give me back my carbon tax credit , you ignorant clod !
The dog is a 100 \ % organic heater , and applies its warmth in a more efficient , directed fashion than space heaters ( warming my bed or my lap , rather than the walls and ceiling ) .
Give me back my carbon tax credit , you ignorant clod !
In Soviet Russia , carbon taxes YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Cities are experimenting with turning dog wastes into both biofuel and electricity.
Give me back my carbon tax credit, you ignorant clod!
The dog is a 100\% organic heater, and applies its warmth in a more efficient, directed fashion than space heaters (warming my bed or my lap, rather than the walls and ceiling).
Give me back my carbon tax credit, you ignorant clod!
In Soviet Russia, carbon taxes YOU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870503</id>
	<title>Kittens?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256555040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it work with kittens too?<br>
Remember? "Every time you masturbate, god kills a kitten"<br>
I've been saving the planet all that time and didn't even know it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it work with kittens too ?
Remember ? " Every time you masturbate , god kills a kitten " I 've been saving the planet all that time and did n't even know it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it work with kittens too?
Remember? "Every time you masturbate, god kills a kitten"
I've been saving the planet all that time and didn't even know it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29879215</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like you have a lot of pets...</title>
	<author>A\_Non\_Moose</author>
	<datestamp>1256561460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think I know where I'm having dinner tonight!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>-A Committed Environmentalist</p></div></blockquote><p>Going to the dogs, eh?</p><p>Sounds like a plan, feed these wingnuts to the dogs...way to go!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I know where I 'm having dinner tonight !
: ) -A Committed EnvironmentalistGoing to the dogs , eh ? Sounds like a plan , feed these wingnuts to the dogs...way to go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I know where I'm having dinner tonight!
:)-A Committed EnvironmentalistGoing to the dogs, eh?Sounds like a plan, feed these wingnuts to the dogs...way to go!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871999</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1256569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad this has come out.<br>Practically everyone in my neighborhood has a dog. Dog owners use our local park where kids are meant to play as a dog toilet. Bloody dogs barking all night drives me crazy. Why keep a dog in a city? Its stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad this has come out.Practically everyone in my neighborhood has a dog .
Dog owners use our local park where kids are meant to play as a dog toilet .
Bloody dogs barking all night drives me crazy .
Why keep a dog in a city ?
Its stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad this has come out.Practically everyone in my neighborhood has a dog.
Dog owners use our local park where kids are meant to play as a dog toilet.
Bloody dogs barking all night drives me crazy.
Why keep a dog in a city?
Its stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871301</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1256565720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Additionally, I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wait, isn't fertilizer one of the components that terrorists use to make bombs?  So you're saying that your dog is a terrorist?</p><p>uh oh... Now I've just united the Right and Left in the goal of banning pets.  The Left will do it to save the environment and the Right will do it to fight the terrorists!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.Wait , is n't fertilizer one of the components that terrorists use to make bombs ?
So you 're saying that your dog is a terrorist ? uh oh... Now I 've just united the Right and Left in the goal of banning pets .
The Left will do it to save the environment and the Right will do it to fight the terrorists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.Wait, isn't fertilizer one of the components that terrorists use to make bombs?
So you're saying that your dog is a terrorist?uh oh... Now I've just united the Right and Left in the goal of banning pets.
The Left will do it to save the environment and the Right will do it to fight the terrorists!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872229</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1256571000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As the owner of two dogs, sign me up. I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane.</p>  </div><p>Good try, but sorry.  McDonald's has already laid claim to those credits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the owner of two dogs , sign me up .
I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane .
Good try , but sorry .
McDonald 's has already laid claim to those credits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the owner of two dogs, sign me up.
I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane.
Good try, but sorry.
McDonald's has already laid claim to those credits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193</id>
	<title>Good grief..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256494680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think when your ultimate goal is to slaughter and consume<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. an animal stops being a "pet". And would sure make an interesting dinner, as your daughter chokes down Fluffy, her pet rabbit.</p><p>I mean.. it's an interesting report.. but I don't think anything realistic has been proposed here. They may as well have proposed we treat our cars as pets..</p><p>Why even bother looking at this stuff.. there's all kinds of other areas that could realistically be addressed. For example phone books! The amount of resources spent printing and distributing something that 70\% of the time probably ends up in a land fill untouched is astounding. I saw some documentary where they were taking core samples at junk yards.. there were literally layers of phone books.. they used it to date the segments..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think when your ultimate goal is to slaughter and consume .. an animal stops being a " pet " .
And would sure make an interesting dinner , as your daughter chokes down Fluffy , her pet rabbit.I mean.. it 's an interesting report.. but I do n't think anything realistic has been proposed here .
They may as well have proposed we treat our cars as pets..Why even bother looking at this stuff.. there 's all kinds of other areas that could realistically be addressed .
For example phone books !
The amount of resources spent printing and distributing something that 70 \ % of the time probably ends up in a land fill untouched is astounding .
I saw some documentary where they were taking core samples at junk yards.. there were literally layers of phone books.. they used it to date the segments. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think when your ultimate goal is to slaughter and consume .. an animal stops being a "pet".
And would sure make an interesting dinner, as your daughter chokes down Fluffy, her pet rabbit.I mean.. it's an interesting report.. but I don't think anything realistic has been proposed here.
They may as well have proposed we treat our cars as pets..Why even bother looking at this stuff.. there's all kinds of other areas that could realistically be addressed.
For example phone books!
The amount of resources spent printing and distributing something that 70\% of the time probably ends up in a land fill untouched is astounding.
I saw some documentary where they were taking core samples at junk yards.. there were literally layers of phone books.. they used it to date the segments..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869973</id>
	<title>People are crazy.</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1256548020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you are seeing is large scale insanity.  It is strange to you because you have not realized that a huge portion of the population (may a majority) can not completely differentiate between a human and a dog/cat/etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are seeing is large scale insanity .
It is strange to you because you have not realized that a huge portion of the population ( may a majority ) can not completely differentiate between a human and a dog/cat/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are seeing is large scale insanity.
It is strange to you because you have not realized that a huge portion of the population (may a majority) can not completely differentiate between a human and a dog/cat/etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29884325</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1256660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always thought people that devoted to animals to be psychologically deficient in some way - to me it's liking choosing porn in preference to an actual sexual relationship. Weird.</p><p>Of course many pet owners appear to have a partner relationship with their pets. Kissing animals that have just been sniffing at shit and licking their own anuses; I will never understand that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always thought people that devoted to animals to be psychologically deficient in some way - to me it 's liking choosing porn in preference to an actual sexual relationship .
Weird.Of course many pet owners appear to have a partner relationship with their pets .
Kissing animals that have just been sniffing at shit and licking their own anuses ; I will never understand that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always thought people that devoted to animals to be psychologically deficient in some way - to me it's liking choosing porn in preference to an actual sexual relationship.
Weird.Of course many pet owners appear to have a partner relationship with their pets.
Kissing animals that have just been sniffing at shit and licking their own anuses; I will never understand that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870181</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256550840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seriously, why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists?</p></div></blockquote><p>What do you mean?  The environmentalist I know talk about it all the time.  I know one who you can't shut up once they start talking about population.  Ask yourself why you think they don't mention it?  I suspect it's because you get your facts about environmentalists from a limited news source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists ? What do you mean ?
The environmentalist I know talk about it all the time .
I know one who you ca n't shut up once they start talking about population .
Ask yourself why you think they do n't mention it ?
I suspect it 's because you get your facts about environmentalists from a limited news source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists?What do you mean?
The environmentalist I know talk about it all the time.
I know one who you can't shut up once they start talking about population.
Ask yourself why you think they don't mention it?
I suspect it's because you get your facts about environmentalists from a limited news source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871495</id>
	<title>Re:This should actually be more or less common sen</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256566980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alternatively, one can realize that even non-work/food pets deliver some sort of value to their owners. Then rather than considering whether something "is an option" or not, we can consider whether the pet (or the SUV or the eco-book writer, etc) justifies its cost. The pet owner seems to be in a unique position to make that decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively , one can realize that even non-work/food pets deliver some sort of value to their owners .
Then rather than considering whether something " is an option " or not , we can consider whether the pet ( or the SUV or the eco-book writer , etc ) justifies its cost .
The pet owner seems to be in a unique position to make that decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively, one can realize that even non-work/food pets deliver some sort of value to their owners.
Then rather than considering whether something "is an option" or not, we can consider whether the pet (or the SUV or the eco-book writer, etc) justifies its cost.
The pet owner seems to be in a unique position to make that decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873601</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1256577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your sentiment, but your specific examlpes are a bit off the mark.</p><p>1) I switched to CFL for purely economic reasons, and while I don't agree with making them mandatory, I have been saving money. (I haven't had to replace a light globe in 3 years.)</p><p>2) Completely agree</p><p>3) My parents installed a solar hot water system in 1981. A couple of years ago it started leaking, we called a plumber but no-one wanted to look at it, so I have to get up there with a tube of silicon. Still running, still only have to pay for hot water for 2 months out of a year.</p><p>4) Now this one I do take issue with. There are only certain areas which are suitable for building dams. Everyone gets excited about the idea of recycling water, but that incurrs a sizeable energy cost. Certain areas of the planet can only support a small population. I am a huge fan of grey water recycling, and so are the trees in my backyard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your sentiment , but your specific examlpes are a bit off the mark.1 ) I switched to CFL for purely economic reasons , and while I do n't agree with making them mandatory , I have been saving money .
( I have n't had to replace a light globe in 3 years .
) 2 ) Completely agree3 ) My parents installed a solar hot water system in 1981 .
A couple of years ago it started leaking , we called a plumber but no-one wanted to look at it , so I have to get up there with a tube of silicon .
Still running , still only have to pay for hot water for 2 months out of a year.4 ) Now this one I do take issue with .
There are only certain areas which are suitable for building dams .
Everyone gets excited about the idea of recycling water , but that incurrs a sizeable energy cost .
Certain areas of the planet can only support a small population .
I am a huge fan of grey water recycling , and so are the trees in my backyard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your sentiment, but your specific examlpes are a bit off the mark.1) I switched to CFL for purely economic reasons, and while I don't agree with making them mandatory, I have been saving money.
(I haven't had to replace a light globe in 3 years.
)2) Completely agree3) My parents installed a solar hot water system in 1981.
A couple of years ago it started leaking, we called a plumber but no-one wanted to look at it, so I have to get up there with a tube of silicon.
Still running, still only have to pay for hot water for 2 months out of a year.4) Now this one I do take issue with.
There are only certain areas which are suitable for building dams.
Everyone gets excited about the idea of recycling water, but that incurrs a sizeable energy cost.
Certain areas of the planet can only support a small population.
I am a huge fan of grey water recycling, and so are the trees in my backyard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874793</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256583240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article, it seems they did factor in the production of the vehicles.</p><p>However, they seem to be comparing the land use requirements to produce food for a pet against the amount of "energy" that land could produce, and equating that to the "energy" that the SUV used up.</p><p>I'm pretty suspicious that the pet food production numbers are liberally estimated while the land-energy-production and SUV-driving numbers are pretty conservatively estimated, in order to make a nice splash.  10000 km/year isn't much at all to drive.  Besides, SUVs in general don't currently use energy produced on farms.  Around here we also don't tend to use prime farmland (the kind you'd probably need to hit their energy production capacity target) as ranch land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article , it seems they did factor in the production of the vehicles.However , they seem to be comparing the land use requirements to produce food for a pet against the amount of " energy " that land could produce , and equating that to the " energy " that the SUV used up.I 'm pretty suspicious that the pet food production numbers are liberally estimated while the land-energy-production and SUV-driving numbers are pretty conservatively estimated , in order to make a nice splash .
10000 km/year is n't much at all to drive .
Besides , SUVs in general do n't currently use energy produced on farms .
Around here we also do n't tend to use prime farmland ( the kind you 'd probably need to hit their energy production capacity target ) as ranch land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article, it seems they did factor in the production of the vehicles.However, they seem to be comparing the land use requirements to produce food for a pet against the amount of "energy" that land could produce, and equating that to the "energy" that the SUV used up.I'm pretty suspicious that the pet food production numbers are liberally estimated while the land-energy-production and SUV-driving numbers are pretty conservatively estimated, in order to make a nice splash.
10000 km/year isn't much at all to drive.
Besides, SUVs in general don't currently use energy produced on farms.
Around here we also don't tend to use prime farmland (the kind you'd probably need to hit their energy production capacity target) as ranch land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869585</id>
	<title>That is probably a bunch of non sense</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1256499360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of pet is known to be refuses, or rest of what is left of an animal after human have taken the best or less best part. So the eco foot print has ALREADY BEEN PAID, except maybe transportation cost. Comparing it to using 1Kg of real chicken and surface is a lie, and I smell the kind of lie a PETA associate would do. Remember PETA dislike pets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of pet is known to be refuses , or rest of what is left of an animal after human have taken the best or less best part .
So the eco foot print has ALREADY BEEN PAID , except maybe transportation cost .
Comparing it to using 1Kg of real chicken and surface is a lie , and I smell the kind of lie a PETA associate would do .
Remember PETA dislike pets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of pet is known to be refuses, or rest of what is left of an animal after human have taken the best or less best part.
So the eco foot print has ALREADY BEEN PAID, except maybe transportation cost.
Comparing it to using 1Kg of real chicken and surface is a lie, and I smell the kind of lie a PETA associate would do.
Remember PETA dislike pets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874065</id>
	<title>Re:10,000km per year?</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1256579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't that be 10Mm ? This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. after all, we'd be all bent out of shape if we were talking about ohms or watts here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't that be 10Mm ?
This is / .
after all , we 'd be all bent out of shape if we were talking about ohms or watts here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't that be 10Mm ?
This is /.
after all, we'd be all bent out of shape if we were talking about ohms or watts here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870047</id>
	<title>Hmmm - way to get a Nobel price...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256549040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. wage a war</p><p>2. kill some people reducing our carbon footprint</p><p>3. get a peace Nobel price !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. wage a war2 .
kill some people reducing our carbon footprint3 .
get a peace Nobel price !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. wage a war2.
kill some people reducing our carbon footprint3.
get a peace Nobel price !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872339</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the pets and see its effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256571540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd seriously "get in the car and drive around" just to "waste time"? Jesus man, read a book or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd seriously " get in the car and drive around " just to " waste time " ?
Jesus man , read a book or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd seriously "get in the car and drive around" just to "waste time"?
Jesus man, read a book or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869751</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like you have a lot of pets...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Having dinner" or "being dinner"? These subtle distinctions can make a difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Having dinner " or " being dinner " ?
These subtle distinctions can make a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Having dinner" or "being dinner"?
These subtle distinctions can make a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29882071</id>
	<title>Good thinking, wrong target group..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256644860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly, a better solution to saving the planet would be to stop humans from procreating. This would also solve the problem of pets, cars, and those little annoying things that run around screaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , a better solution to saving the planet would be to stop humans from procreating .
This would also solve the problem of pets , cars , and those little annoying things that run around screaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, a better solution to saving the planet would be to stop humans from procreating.
This would also solve the problem of pets, cars, and those little annoying things that run around screaming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869339</id>
	<title>Re:Calm down guys</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256496180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People keep chickens, turkeys and rabbits as "pets" all the time.  Altough you shouldn't don't get too attached to the ones you're going to be having for dinner later.  The type of pet someone gets is often influenced by economics.  College students like me may opt for a cheaper gold fish or a hamster instead of a dog or a cat.  If things get to the point where peoples' resources are strained, we'll probably see a major decrease in the popularity of larger, more costly pets in favor of smaller ones that are easier on the wallet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People keep chickens , turkeys and rabbits as " pets " all the time .
Altough you should n't do n't get too attached to the ones you 're going to be having for dinner later .
The type of pet someone gets is often influenced by economics .
College students like me may opt for a cheaper gold fish or a hamster instead of a dog or a cat .
If things get to the point where peoples ' resources are strained , we 'll probably see a major decrease in the popularity of larger , more costly pets in favor of smaller ones that are easier on the wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People keep chickens, turkeys and rabbits as "pets" all the time.
Altough you shouldn't don't get too attached to the ones you're going to be having for dinner later.
The type of pet someone gets is often influenced by economics.
College students like me may opt for a cheaper gold fish or a hamster instead of a dog or a cat.
If things get to the point where peoples' resources are strained, we'll probably see a major decrease in the popularity of larger, more costly pets in favor of smaller ones that are easier on the wallet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869325</id>
	<title>in Soviet Russia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256496120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dogs eat YOU!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs eat YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs eat YOU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29881315</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256674020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issues is over population.  We are willing to sacrifice everything around us but us.  Get rid of a bunch of us and the planet will find equilibrium. I love it, it's the cows, now the dogs, how about us? We are the cancer, devouring and destroying everything in our path. Long live them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issues is over population .
We are willing to sacrifice everything around us but us .
Get rid of a bunch of us and the planet will find equilibrium .
I love it , it 's the cows , now the dogs , how about us ?
We are the cancer , devouring and destroying everything in our path .
Long live them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issues is over population.
We are willing to sacrifice everything around us but us.
Get rid of a bunch of us and the planet will find equilibrium.
I love it, it's the cows, now the dogs, how about us?
We are the cancer, devouring and destroying everything in our path.
Long live them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869233</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>brad3378</author>
	<datestamp>1256495100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.</p><p>What to do...</p></div><p>Well......<br>They say that it's a dog eat dog world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.What to do...Well......They say that it 's a dog eat dog world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.What to do...Well......They say that it's a dog eat dog world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870993</id>
	<title>Fucking Insane</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256562900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick! Save the environment! Kill and eat all the animals! It's the only way to save the environment!</p><p>Anyone else see how far up it's own arse this entire idea is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick !
Save the environment !
Kill and eat all the animals !
It 's the only way to save the environment ! Anyone else see how far up it 's own arse this entire idea is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick!
Save the environment!
Kill and eat all the animals!
It's the only way to save the environment!Anyone else see how far up it's own arse this entire idea is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869637</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256500080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may seem odd, but I think a lot of pet owners here, myself included, if they had a choice between rescuing their pets from a fire or a total stranger would go for the pets. That doesn't exactly mean they are the same value as humans, but they have more <i>personal</i> value than humans that I don't know. My two dogs really are like children to me. I have had one of them for 14 years, got her the week I moved out of my parents' house. I empathize with her when she feels joy, I share her pain when she is hurt or sick. I will be as devastated when she dies as I would if I lost any other member of my immediate family. That's how important pets can be.<br> <br>By the way, one of the reasons the black plague spread so quickly in the middle ages was that people blamed cats and dogs and started culling them. Guess what was keeping the rat population at bay? I'd say that alone is good enough reason to keep our pets around. If you want to lower your carbon footprint, stop eating all that unsustainable fast food.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may seem odd , but I think a lot of pet owners here , myself included , if they had a choice between rescuing their pets from a fire or a total stranger would go for the pets .
That does n't exactly mean they are the same value as humans , but they have more personal value than humans that I do n't know .
My two dogs really are like children to me .
I have had one of them for 14 years , got her the week I moved out of my parents ' house .
I empathize with her when she feels joy , I share her pain when she is hurt or sick .
I will be as devastated when she dies as I would if I lost any other member of my immediate family .
That 's how important pets can be .
By the way , one of the reasons the black plague spread so quickly in the middle ages was that people blamed cats and dogs and started culling them .
Guess what was keeping the rat population at bay ?
I 'd say that alone is good enough reason to keep our pets around .
If you want to lower your carbon footprint , stop eating all that unsustainable fast food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may seem odd, but I think a lot of pet owners here, myself included, if they had a choice between rescuing their pets from a fire or a total stranger would go for the pets.
That doesn't exactly mean they are the same value as humans, but they have more personal value than humans that I don't know.
My two dogs really are like children to me.
I have had one of them for 14 years, got her the week I moved out of my parents' house.
I empathize with her when she feels joy, I share her pain when she is hurt or sick.
I will be as devastated when she dies as I would if I lost any other member of my immediate family.
That's how important pets can be.
By the way, one of the reasons the black plague spread so quickly in the middle ages was that people blamed cats and dogs and started culling them.
Guess what was keeping the rat population at bay?
I'd say that alone is good enough reason to keep our pets around.
If you want to lower your carbon footprint, stop eating all that unsustainable fast food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870647</id>
	<title>Re:Another suggestion</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256557860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately for you, you're vastly outnumbered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for you , you 're vastly outnumbered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for you, you're vastly outnumbered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253</id>
	<title>Take away the pets and see its effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take away the pets and see if energy consumption in fact goes down.<br> <br>
With no pets, instead of spending time playing with them, I'll turn on the TV, get in the car and drive around mostly to waste time, etc.<br> <br>
These results might be sound on paper, but I highly doubt real world would approve of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take away the pets and see if energy consumption in fact goes down .
With no pets , instead of spending time playing with them , I 'll turn on the TV , get in the car and drive around mostly to waste time , etc .
These results might be sound on paper , but I highly doubt real world would approve of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take away the pets and see if energy consumption in fact goes down.
With no pets, instead of spending time playing with them, I'll turn on the TV, get in the car and drive around mostly to waste time, etc.
These results might be sound on paper, but I highly doubt real world would approve of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869931</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256590500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your simple tank model is exactly why laymen should never try and argue this issue. What a laughable joke, the problem my dear is the hole in the tank will get bigger and smaller. In any case the ice core data shows that the temperature drives CO2 -- You know what, its just not worth it, you're not going to listen anyway.</p><p>A pissed off anonymous physicists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your simple tank model is exactly why laymen should never try and argue this issue .
What a laughable joke , the problem my dear is the hole in the tank will get bigger and smaller .
In any case the ice core data shows that the temperature drives CO2 -- You know what , its just not worth it , you 're not going to listen anyway.A pissed off anonymous physicists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your simple tank model is exactly why laymen should never try and argue this issue.
What a laughable joke, the problem my dear is the hole in the tank will get bigger and smaller.
In any case the ice core data shows that the temperature drives CO2 -- You know what, its just not worth it, you're not going to listen anyway.A pissed off anonymous physicists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874103</id>
	<title>Still less of an impact than baby humans!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256580180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this study should be factoring in that many Americans subconsciously view their pets as surrogate children.  So in that sense pets are reducing ecological footprint by being a replacement for little Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this study should be factoring in that many Americans subconsciously view their pets as surrogate children .
So in that sense pets are reducing ecological footprint by being a replacement for little Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this study should be factoring in that many Americans subconsciously view their pets as surrogate children.
So in that sense pets are reducing ecological footprint by being a replacement for little Americans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875915</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256588460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This argument mostly only applies to pigs - because they'll eat all the same stuff as humans.</p><p>Cows, sheep, goats, and poultry are raised not just for what we get from them dead, but also for what we get from them alive - milk, wool, eggs, fertilizer, and in some societies blood. Since they can eat things we can't, things which grow in places we can't farm well, it's a net win, and we use their crap as fertilizer in places we CAN grow food, and then when they die we still get the meat and feathers and leather. Many of their byproducts also store well, including during seasons that plants don't grow well, so it's also a net win in that respect. All of these are good reasons why there are a whole lot of successful omnivore human societies and no pure vegan human societies. In places where we can't grow plants, we grow meat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This argument mostly only applies to pigs - because they 'll eat all the same stuff as humans.Cows , sheep , goats , and poultry are raised not just for what we get from them dead , but also for what we get from them alive - milk , wool , eggs , fertilizer , and in some societies blood .
Since they can eat things we ca n't , things which grow in places we ca n't farm well , it 's a net win , and we use their crap as fertilizer in places we CAN grow food , and then when they die we still get the meat and feathers and leather .
Many of their byproducts also store well , including during seasons that plants do n't grow well , so it 's also a net win in that respect .
All of these are good reasons why there are a whole lot of successful omnivore human societies and no pure vegan human societies .
In places where we ca n't grow plants , we grow meat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This argument mostly only applies to pigs - because they'll eat all the same stuff as humans.Cows, sheep, goats, and poultry are raised not just for what we get from them dead, but also for what we get from them alive - milk, wool, eggs, fertilizer, and in some societies blood.
Since they can eat things we can't, things which grow in places we can't farm well, it's a net win, and we use their crap as fertilizer in places we CAN grow food, and then when they die we still get the meat and feathers and leather.
Many of their byproducts also store well, including during seasons that plants don't grow well, so it's also a net win in that respect.
All of these are good reasons why there are a whole lot of successful omnivore human societies and no pure vegan human societies.
In places where we can't grow plants, we grow meat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869701</id>
	<title>This should actually be more or less common sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256500740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pets are expensive to "maintain", by this I mean feed, supply medical care for, and in some cases clothe.  Things that you spend money on ussaully in some way involve consuming energy, therefore "expensive = bad for the environment".  Keeping non-food / work animals around is a tremendous indulgence that is possible only becuase we live in a very affluent society.  Of course it's also true that the energy consumption of a pet is still far less then the energy consumption of a human adult or even a human child, but if we are to continue to survive as a species, ceasing to reproduce is not exactly an option.  However, for the amjority of human beings, not keeping pets IS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pets are expensive to " maintain " , by this I mean feed , supply medical care for , and in some cases clothe .
Things that you spend money on ussaully in some way involve consuming energy , therefore " expensive = bad for the environment " .
Keeping non-food / work animals around is a tremendous indulgence that is possible only becuase we live in a very affluent society .
Of course it 's also true that the energy consumption of a pet is still far less then the energy consumption of a human adult or even a human child , but if we are to continue to survive as a species , ceasing to reproduce is not exactly an option .
However , for the amjority of human beings , not keeping pets IS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pets are expensive to "maintain", by this I mean feed, supply medical care for, and in some cases clothe.
Things that you spend money on ussaully in some way involve consuming energy, therefore "expensive = bad for the environment".
Keeping non-food / work animals around is a tremendous indulgence that is possible only becuase we live in a very affluent society.
Of course it's also true that the energy consumption of a pet is still far less then the energy consumption of a human adult or even a human child, but if we are to continue to survive as a species, ceasing to reproduce is not exactly an option.
However, for the amjority of human beings, not keeping pets IS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875609</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1256587080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.</p></div><p>So long as you pick it up and put it where it's environmentally useful.  Entirely too many people break their bones every year slipping on Fido's scat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.So long as you pick it up and put it where it 's environmentally useful .
Entirely too many people break their bones every year slipping on Fido 's scat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.So long as you pick it up and put it where it's environmentally useful.
Entirely too many people break their bones every year slipping on Fido's scat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869465</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256497740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about all the dog poop in public areas where my child has to watch out for when he plays?  This runs off into the storm drains and in to the ocean which means temporary closure of our beaches?  I think this is called pollution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all the dog poop in public areas where my child has to watch out for when he plays ?
This runs off into the storm drains and in to the ocean which means temporary closure of our beaches ?
I think this is called pollution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all the dog poop in public areas where my child has to watch out for when he plays?
This runs off into the storm drains and in to the ocean which means temporary closure of our beaches?
I think this is called pollution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869955</id>
	<title>Re:10,000km per year?</title>
	<author>ihavnoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256547780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Korea, my mom's 14-year old Hyundai Sonata had something like 67,000km of mileage when she sent it to the junkyard. Although it is ridiculous even compared to other cars here, what I typically see from other cars around here is that the mileage is about 10,000 km per year, which is equivalent to about 30km per day.</p><p>And yes, due to the horrible traffic condition here, a 15km trip in the peak times take something like an hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Korea , my mom 's 14-year old Hyundai Sonata had something like 67,000km of mileage when she sent it to the junkyard .
Although it is ridiculous even compared to other cars here , what I typically see from other cars around here is that the mileage is about 10,000 km per year , which is equivalent to about 30km per day.And yes , due to the horrible traffic condition here , a 15km trip in the peak times take something like an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Korea, my mom's 14-year old Hyundai Sonata had something like 67,000km of mileage when she sent it to the junkyard.
Although it is ridiculous even compared to other cars here, what I typically see from other cars around here is that the mileage is about 10,000 km per year, which is equivalent to about 30km per day.And yes, due to the horrible traffic condition here, a 15km trip in the peak times take something like an hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873363</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1256576400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider it a favor to yourself then.  Research shows that non-parents are happier than parents.  Kids are an enormous drain on your financial and emotional resources.  And yeah, parents will say "it's worth it", but their judgment is clouded with hormones.  Spend your life doing what you want to do, not what your kids want to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider it a favor to yourself then .
Research shows that non-parents are happier than parents .
Kids are an enormous drain on your financial and emotional resources .
And yeah , parents will say " it 's worth it " , but their judgment is clouded with hormones .
Spend your life doing what you want to do , not what your kids want to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider it a favor to yourself then.
Research shows that non-parents are happier than parents.
Kids are an enormous drain on your financial and emotional resources.
And yeah, parents will say "it's worth it", but their judgment is clouded with hormones.
Spend your life doing what you want to do, not what your kids want to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870657</id>
	<title>Save a tree</title>
	<author>richtopia</author>
	<datestamp>1256558100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eat a Beaver!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat a Beaver !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat a Beaver!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870077</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1256549400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds to me like the study is being sponsored by the oil and car industries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like the study is being sponsored by the oil and car industries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me like the study is being sponsored by the oil and car industries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>panthroman</author>
	<datestamp>1256497560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists?  Total human footprint = footprint per person x number of people.  Why is all the focus on the first part?</p><p>In grade school, we learned that 'tribal peoples' were super environmentalist.  Now, in a backlash against the cultural relativism (and historically-based guilt) I grew up in, folks like Dawkins argue that tribal people weren't environmentalists at all - they were just incapable of making such an impact due to their low population densities.  But intentional or not, isn't that a killer way to lessen your impact?</p><p>It's high time folks stopped applauding huge families (I'm looking at you, religion...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists ?
Total human footprint = footprint per person x number of people .
Why is all the focus on the first part ? In grade school , we learned that 'tribal peoples ' were super environmentalist .
Now , in a backlash against the cultural relativism ( and historically-based guilt ) I grew up in , folks like Dawkins argue that tribal people were n't environmentalists at all - they were just incapable of making such an impact due to their low population densities .
But intentional or not , is n't that a killer way to lessen your impact ? It 's high time folks stopped applauding huge families ( I 'm looking at you , religion... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists?
Total human footprint = footprint per person x number of people.
Why is all the focus on the first part?In grade school, we learned that 'tribal peoples' were super environmentalist.
Now, in a backlash against the cultural relativism (and historically-based guilt) I grew up in, folks like Dawkins argue that tribal people weren't environmentalists at all - they were just incapable of making such an impact due to their low population densities.
But intentional or not, isn't that a killer way to lessen your impact?It's high time folks stopped applauding huge families (I'm looking at you, religion...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869871</id>
	<title>the math is bad</title>
	<author>graft</author>
	<datestamp>1256589600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, so take me through this:<blockquote><div><p>This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha &ndash; less than half of the dog's.</p></div></blockquote><p>

In other words, they're comparing the INPUTS required to run a car to the OUTPUTS from a hectare of land - isn't this an apples to oranges comparison? They should really be comparing how much energy it takes to produce a hectare's worth of crops (i.e., how many fuel equivalents are consumed in the car and by the dog). This seems a big error in the computation.

Also, the thing just doesn't pass the smell test. In all other carbon footprint calculators I can find, food is a smaller fraction of the footprint for an average person compared to driving &amp; flying - often less than half or even a third as much. So if an adult human consumes less energy via food than they do in a car, are you telling me that a dog somehow consumes four to six times more food than an adult human? That a <i>cat</i> does? This sounds like a load of bullshit to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so take me through this : This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido .
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser , driven 10,000km a year , which uses 55.1 gigajoules ( the energy used to build and fuel it ) .
One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year , which means the vehicle 's eco-footprint is 0.41ha    less than half of the dog 's .
In other words , they 're comparing the INPUTS required to run a car to the OUTPUTS from a hectare of land - is n't this an apples to oranges comparison ?
They should really be comparing how much energy it takes to produce a hectare 's worth of crops ( i.e. , how many fuel equivalents are consumed in the car and by the dog ) .
This seems a big error in the computation .
Also , the thing just does n't pass the smell test .
In all other carbon footprint calculators I can find , food is a smaller fraction of the footprint for an average person compared to driving &amp; flying - often less than half or even a third as much .
So if an adult human consumes less energy via food than they do in a car , are you telling me that a dog somehow consumes four to six times more food than an adult human ?
That a cat does ?
This sounds like a load of bullshit to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so take me through this:This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it).
One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's.
In other words, they're comparing the INPUTS required to run a car to the OUTPUTS from a hectare of land - isn't this an apples to oranges comparison?
They should really be comparing how much energy it takes to produce a hectare's worth of crops (i.e., how many fuel equivalents are consumed in the car and by the dog).
This seems a big error in the computation.
Also, the thing just doesn't pass the smell test.
In all other carbon footprint calculators I can find, food is a smaller fraction of the footprint for an average person compared to driving &amp; flying - often less than half or even a third as much.
So if an adult human consumes less energy via food than they do in a car, are you telling me that a dog somehow consumes four to six times more food than an adult human?
That a cat does?
This sounds like a load of bullshit to me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874961</id>
	<title>Re:The obvious solution</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256583960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or get a cat.  Cats are SUPPOSED to eat mice and things.  They will too, if you let them go outside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or get a cat .
Cats are SUPPOSED to eat mice and things .
They will too , if you let them go outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or get a cat.
Cats are SUPPOSED to eat mice and things.
They will too, if you let them go outside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29877857</id>
	<title>everything uses giga-joules</title>
	<author>murdocj</author>
	<datestamp>1256553360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had your computer with a 500w power supply on 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, you are burning about 8 giga-joules (figuring 1 watt = 1 joule/sec, 3600 secs/hr * 500 w = 1.8 million joules / hr, multiple by an random guesstimated average usage of 12 hours/day and 365 days a year), or about 1/7th of the Toyota Land Cruiser (according to the article).</p><p>And that doesn't factor in the energy to produce it, the energy to connect it to the Internet, the fact that if you are reading Slashdot you probably have a couple of computers, you may be using them more than 12 hours in a day, etc.</p><p>Or to put it another way, these researchers, who don't have a pet, probably run computers that use as much energy as a pet.  Like most people, these researchers find it easy to dispense with things that they don't personally care about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had your computer with a 500w power supply on 12 hours a day , 365 days a year , you are burning about 8 giga-joules ( figuring 1 watt = 1 joule/sec , 3600 secs/hr * 500 w = 1.8 million joules / hr , multiple by an random guesstimated average usage of 12 hours/day and 365 days a year ) , or about 1/7th of the Toyota Land Cruiser ( according to the article ) .And that does n't factor in the energy to produce it , the energy to connect it to the Internet , the fact that if you are reading Slashdot you probably have a couple of computers , you may be using them more than 12 hours in a day , etc.Or to put it another way , these researchers , who do n't have a pet , probably run computers that use as much energy as a pet .
Like most people , these researchers find it easy to dispense with things that they do n't personally care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had your computer with a 500w power supply on 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, you are burning about 8 giga-joules (figuring 1 watt = 1 joule/sec, 3600 secs/hr * 500 w = 1.8 million joules / hr, multiple by an random guesstimated average usage of 12 hours/day and 365 days a year), or about 1/7th of the Toyota Land Cruiser (according to the article).And that doesn't factor in the energy to produce it, the energy to connect it to the Internet, the fact that if you are reading Slashdot you probably have a couple of computers, you may be using them more than 12 hours in a day, etc.Or to put it another way, these researchers, who don't have a pet, probably run computers that use as much energy as a pet.
Like most people, these researchers find it easy to dispense with things that they don't personally care about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871477</id>
	<title>Re:10,000km per year?</title>
	<author>QuasiEvil</author>
	<datestamp>1256566860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I only drive mine about 6,000mi per year.  The rest of the miles are soaked up by what I deem "disposable" cars - used Civics and the like that I can buy for cheap, rack up a ton of commuter miles, and then either sell for close to what I bought them for or haul them down to the junkyard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I only drive mine about 6,000mi per year .
The rest of the miles are soaked up by what I deem " disposable " cars - used Civics and the like that I can buy for cheap , rack up a ton of commuter miles , and then either sell for close to what I bought them for or haul them down to the junkyard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I only drive mine about 6,000mi per year.
The rest of the miles are soaked up by what I deem "disposable" cars - used Civics and the like that I can buy for cheap, rack up a ton of commuter miles, and then either sell for close to what I bought them for or haul them down to the junkyard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870881</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256561520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen! Shocked by the first few responses I read, I had to go through all the other posts to find one that shared my values. I'm not a cold animal-hater (I even grew up on a farm), but I do consider myself a realist when it comes to human survival. Anyway, this is the only post I found that shares my beliefs, so thank you for speaking up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen !
Shocked by the first few responses I read , I had to go through all the other posts to find one that shared my values .
I 'm not a cold animal-hater ( I even grew up on a farm ) , but I do consider myself a realist when it comes to human survival .
Anyway , this is the only post I found that shares my beliefs , so thank you for speaking up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen!
Shocked by the first few responses I read, I had to go through all the other posts to find one that shared my values.
I'm not a cold animal-hater (I even grew up on a farm), but I do consider myself a realist when it comes to human survival.
Anyway, this is the only post I found that shares my beliefs, so thank you for speaking up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29880879</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256579580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this is my concern too. Also, what about the environmental impacts from making the car, and then (at the end of its life) disposing of it? Surely we need a whole-of-lifecycle comparison for it to have any validity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is my concern too .
Also , what about the environmental impacts from making the car , and then ( at the end of its life ) disposing of it ?
Surely we need a whole-of-lifecycle comparison for it to have any validity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is my concern too.
Also, what about the environmental impacts from making the car, and then (at the end of its life) disposing of it?
Surely we need a whole-of-lifecycle comparison for it to have any validity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870507</id>
	<title>Statistics and lies.</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1256555100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"<br>In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido."</i></p><p>My dog does not get half a kilo of meat every day. And the meat in dogfood is almost worst meat, that is left over from all other meatprocesing. You can easy say that that number is inflated.</p><p>The eco foodprint she is talking about is not the amount of ground that is required to create fuel for the car, creating biofuel is inefficient compared to current free-oil-out of ground.</p><p>The gist of the story is true, meat is ecologically expensive, but the number she choose is like comparing apples with oranges. We should covert all to atomic energy, that has a clean eco footprint...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In a study published in New Scientist , they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year .
It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year .
This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido .
" My dog does not get half a kilo of meat every day .
And the meat in dogfood is almost worst meat , that is left over from all other meatprocesing .
You can easy say that that number is inflated.The eco foodprint she is talking about is not the amount of ground that is required to create fuel for the car , creating biofuel is inefficient compared to current free-oil-out of ground.The gist of the story is true , meat is ecologically expensive , but the number she choose is like comparing apples with oranges .
We should covert all to atomic energy , that has a clean eco footprint.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year.
It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year.
This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
"My dog does not get half a kilo of meat every day.
And the meat in dogfood is almost worst meat, that is left over from all other meatprocesing.
You can easy say that that number is inflated.The eco foodprint she is talking about is not the amount of ground that is required to create fuel for the car, creating biofuel is inefficient compared to current free-oil-out of ground.The gist of the story is true, meat is ecologically expensive, but the number she choose is like comparing apples with oranges.
We should covert all to atomic energy, that has a clean eco footprint...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869965</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1256547840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a shameless speciesist (or is it species chauvinist?) and I'm always jarred by people treating animals as if they're as valuable, as humans. I know people who would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals.</p></div><p>I'm mostly with you on this one, but prisoners aren't random normal humans. They are generally evil. They also happen to be <b> <i>much better</i> </b> for medical research than animals. Prisoners really are the ideal choice, particularly those on death row.</p><p>Animals are not of significant value compared to normal humans. Prisoners are of <i>negative</i> value compared to normal humans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a shameless speciesist ( or is it species chauvinist ?
) and I 'm always jarred by people treating animals as if they 're as valuable , as humans .
I know people who would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals.I 'm mostly with you on this one , but prisoners are n't random normal humans .
They are generally evil .
They also happen to be much better for medical research than animals .
Prisoners really are the ideal choice , particularly those on death row.Animals are not of significant value compared to normal humans .
Prisoners are of negative value compared to normal humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a shameless speciesist (or is it species chauvinist?
) and I'm always jarred by people treating animals as if they're as valuable, as humans.
I know people who would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals.I'm mostly with you on this one, but prisoners aren't random normal humans.
They are generally evil.
They also happen to be  much better  for medical research than animals.
Prisoners really are the ideal choice, particularly those on death row.Animals are not of significant value compared to normal humans.
Prisoners are of negative value compared to normal humans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29876645</id>
	<title>eat your neighbor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256548740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it make more sense to eat your neighbor since humans are the biggest impact on the environment ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it make more sense to eat your neighbor since humans are the biggest impact on the environment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it make more sense to eat your neighbor since humans are the biggest impact on the environment ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</id>
	<title>What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>MisterBuggie</author>
	<datestamp>1256495460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, they compare them by how much land/energy it takes to produce the food/fuel. I would be interested how they came upon their figures for fossil fuels. But my main concern is that they never mention emissions. The main concern with cars isn't so much how much fuel they use, but how much pollution they put out...<br>Also, it seems they didn't factor in producing the vehicles, which also uses a lot of energy and puts out a lot of pollution. Factor those in and I'm sure pets will turn out much cleaner by orders of magnitude...<br>Oh, and did I mention pets are "biodegradable", unlike cars ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , they compare them by how much land/energy it takes to produce the food/fuel .
I would be interested how they came upon their figures for fossil fuels .
But my main concern is that they never mention emissions .
The main concern with cars is n't so much how much fuel they use , but how much pollution they put out...Also , it seems they did n't factor in producing the vehicles , which also uses a lot of energy and puts out a lot of pollution .
Factor those in and I 'm sure pets will turn out much cleaner by orders of magnitude...Oh , and did I mention pets are " biodegradable " , unlike cars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, they compare them by how much land/energy it takes to produce the food/fuel.
I would be interested how they came upon their figures for fossil fuels.
But my main concern is that they never mention emissions.
The main concern with cars isn't so much how much fuel they use, but how much pollution they put out...Also, it seems they didn't factor in producing the vehicles, which also uses a lot of energy and puts out a lot of pollution.
Factor those in and I'm sure pets will turn out much cleaner by orders of magnitude...Oh, and did I mention pets are "biodegradable", unlike cars ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870825</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>DragonFodder</author>
	<datestamp>1256560860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People need to wake up and start using my long standing philosophy...<br> <br> <b>"Everything is lower on the food chain"</b> <br> <br> With its corollary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "Don't give pet names to your food"<br> <br> Best case in point I'd seen of this, was one of those reality shows where a family had been given a pig to raise.  The intent being they would use it as part of an end of season feast.  So they gave it to their son to raise.  And, of course name it.  So, when the time came tears were shed all around. And instead of being thankful they were able to eat something lower on the food chain, they instead provided drama for all the PETA fools, and child protection idiots to fret over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People need to wake up and start using my long standing philosophy... " Everything is lower on the food chain " With its corollary ... " Do n't give pet names to your food " Best case in point I 'd seen of this , was one of those reality shows where a family had been given a pig to raise .
The intent being they would use it as part of an end of season feast .
So they gave it to their son to raise .
And , of course name it .
So , when the time came tears were shed all around .
And instead of being thankful they were able to eat something lower on the food chain , they instead provided drama for all the PETA fools , and child protection idiots to fret over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People need to wake up and start using my long standing philosophy...  "Everything is lower on the food chain"   With its corollary ... "Don't give pet names to your food"  Best case in point I'd seen of this, was one of those reality shows where a family had been given a pig to raise.
The intent being they would use it as part of an end of season feast.
So they gave it to their son to raise.
And, of course name it.
So, when the time came tears were shed all around.
And instead of being thankful they were able to eat something lower on the food chain, they instead provided drama for all the PETA fools, and child protection idiots to fret over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</id>
	<title>Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256497800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fucking fed up with people absolutely losing their minds whenever the word "environment" is mentioned. Suddenly they're willing to buy stupid shit that makes no sense. People lose all objectivity, all ability to add up total cost of ownership and conversion and turn into sock puppets for large corps who are selling them fairytales about being green.</p><p>Shit like this wouldn't fly with a sane rationed well educated public:</p><p>1) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology "for the environment" (no it's not just because there's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price, honest it's not). Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.</p><p>2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away. Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail. Fucking hypocrites!</p><p>3) Solar hot water systems that cost more environmentally and financially to produce, install, run maintain than their conventional counterparts, often require that they be supplemented/boosted by a conventional heater (so net negative gain in terms of production). Honest it's not about selling shit people don't need!</p><p>4) Water conservation and rationing. What a fucking joke. It's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so. Water is not scarce on this planet. It recycles well if you don't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals. The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet. Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we weren't so skitish about grey water. Water as a scarce resource, and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infrastructure.</p><p>Want to know what you can do to stop fucking the environment? No you don't need to fucking eat Fido. Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime. Want to be really good? Have just one. Not into kids? Don't let your birth control regime slip. The one reason we're fucking up there environment is that there's about 6.5 BILLION people and growing. That many of a species that without modern technology and medicine should by rights number in the tens or hundreds of thousands just isn't going to be sustainable. Yet we breed like we're insects and look for ways to live longer and longer (even if it means our quality of life is ass in old age).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fucking fed up with people absolutely losing their minds whenever the word " environment " is mentioned .
Suddenly they 're willing to buy stupid shit that makes no sense .
People lose all objectivity , all ability to add up total cost of ownership and conversion and turn into sock puppets for large corps who are selling them fairytales about being green.Shit like this would n't fly with a sane rationed well educated public : 1 ) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology " for the environment " ( no it 's not just because there 's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price , honest it 's not ) .
Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.2 ) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable " green " " enviro " bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away .
Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we could n't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail .
Fucking hypocrites ! 3 ) Solar hot water systems that cost more environmentally and financially to produce , install , run maintain than their conventional counterparts , often require that they be supplemented/boosted by a conventional heater ( so net negative gain in terms of production ) .
Honest it 's not about selling shit people do n't need ! 4 ) Water conservation and rationing .
What a fucking joke .
It 's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so .
Water is not scarce on this planet .
It recycles well if you do n't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals .
The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet .
Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we were n't so skitish about grey water .
Water as a scarce resource , and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infrastructure.Want to know what you can do to stop fucking the environment ?
No you do n't need to fucking eat Fido .
Do n't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime .
Want to be really good ?
Have just one .
Not into kids ?
Do n't let your birth control regime slip .
The one reason we 're fucking up there environment is that there 's about 6.5 BILLION people and growing .
That many of a species that without modern technology and medicine should by rights number in the tens or hundreds of thousands just is n't going to be sustainable .
Yet we breed like we 're insects and look for ways to live longer and longer ( even if it means our quality of life is ass in old age ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fucking fed up with people absolutely losing their minds whenever the word "environment" is mentioned.
Suddenly they're willing to buy stupid shit that makes no sense.
People lose all objectivity, all ability to add up total cost of ownership and conversion and turn into sock puppets for large corps who are selling them fairytales about being green.Shit like this wouldn't fly with a sane rationed well educated public:1) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology "for the environment" (no it's not just because there's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price, honest it's not).
Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away.
Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail.
Fucking hypocrites!3) Solar hot water systems that cost more environmentally and financially to produce, install, run maintain than their conventional counterparts, often require that they be supplemented/boosted by a conventional heater (so net negative gain in terms of production).
Honest it's not about selling shit people don't need!4) Water conservation and rationing.
What a fucking joke.
It's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so.
Water is not scarce on this planet.
It recycles well if you don't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals.
The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet.
Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we weren't so skitish about grey water.
Water as a scarce resource, and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infrastructure.Want to know what you can do to stop fucking the environment?
No you don't need to fucking eat Fido.
Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime.
Want to be really good?
Have just one.
Not into kids?
Don't let your birth control regime slip.
The one reason we're fucking up there environment is that there's about 6.5 BILLION people and growing.
That many of a species that without modern technology and medicine should by rights number in the tens or hundreds of thousands just isn't going to be sustainable.
Yet we breed like we're insects and look for ways to live longer and longer (even if it means our quality of life is ass in old age).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871417</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1256566500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When people say "we might as well eat neighbors|kids|whoever" they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level, value-wise, with the lives of humans.</p></div><p>Well you do have a point there.<br>Most humans lives aren't worth NEAR that of an animal!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When people say " we might as well eat neighbors | kids | whoever " they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level , value-wise , with the lives of humans.Well you do have a point there.Most humans lives are n't worth NEAR that of an animal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people say "we might as well eat neighbors|kids|whoever" they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level, value-wise, with the lives of humans.Well you do have a point there.Most humans lives aren't worth NEAR that of an animal!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869205</id>
	<title>Cavies</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1256494800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MMmmm... Good eatin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MMmmm... Good eatin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MMmmm... Good eatin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874361</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1256581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Would you kindly stop leaving your environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer all over the sidewalk?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I stoop and scoop.  I <b>would</b> be in favour of converting dog owners who <b>don't</b> pick up after their dogs into soylent green.  Or fining them a minimum of $3,000 per incident.
</p><p>
Or finding out where they live, putting it in a paper bag on their doorstep, setting it on fire and ringing the doorbell.
</p><p>
I'd also like to see a ban on those overly-long retractable dog leashes - too many times, the "rat on a rope" at the other end takes a dump while the owner is pointedly looking the other way, attempting plausible deniability.  Our lease laws say a maximum lead length of 2 meters - 6 feet, but the fine, at a maximum of $300, isn't worth enforcing.  At $3k a pop, it gets worthwhile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you kindly stop leaving your environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer all over the sidewalk ?
I stoop and scoop .
I would be in favour of converting dog owners who do n't pick up after their dogs into soylent green .
Or fining them a minimum of $ 3,000 per incident .
Or finding out where they live , putting it in a paper bag on their doorstep , setting it on fire and ringing the doorbell .
I 'd also like to see a ban on those overly-long retractable dog leashes - too many times , the " rat on a rope " at the other end takes a dump while the owner is pointedly looking the other way , attempting plausible deniability .
Our lease laws say a maximum lead length of 2 meters - 6 feet , but the fine , at a maximum of $ 300 , is n't worth enforcing .
At $ 3k a pop , it gets worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you kindly stop leaving your environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer all over the sidewalk?
I stoop and scoop.
I would be in favour of converting dog owners who don't pick up after their dogs into soylent green.
Or fining them a minimum of $3,000 per incident.
Or finding out where they live, putting it in a paper bag on their doorstep, setting it on fire and ringing the doorbell.
I'd also like to see a ban on those overly-long retractable dog leashes - too many times, the "rat on a rope" at the other end takes a dump while the owner is pointedly looking the other way, attempting plausible deniability.
Our lease laws say a maximum lead length of 2 meters - 6 feet, but the fine, at a maximum of $300, isn't worth enforcing.
At $3k a pop, it gets worthwhile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285</id>
	<title>10,000km per year?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How typical is an SUV that is driven for only 10000km per year? That's what, less than 7k miles? Average mileage (in the USA is 12k miles or more).</p><p>This is just another "study" where the numbers have been "stretched" to make a point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How typical is an SUV that is driven for only 10000km per year ?
That 's what , less than 7k miles ?
Average mileage ( in the USA is 12k miles or more ) .This is just another " study " where the numbers have been " stretched " to make a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How typical is an SUV that is driven for only 10000km per year?
That's what, less than 7k miles?
Average mileage (in the USA is 12k miles or more).This is just another "study" where the numbers have been "stretched" to make a point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870767</id>
	<title>Save NZ, eat the cat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256559780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NZers have an obsession with cats which are far more damaging to NZ's animals than dogs.</p><p>They think little fluffy has the right to roam free and it's cute when it drags in yet another native animal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NZers have an obsession with cats which are far more damaging to NZ 's animals than dogs.They think little fluffy has the right to roam free and it 's cute when it drags in yet another native animal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NZers have an obsession with cats which are far more damaging to NZ's animals than dogs.They think little fluffy has the right to roam free and it's cute when it drags in yet another native animal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869271</id>
	<title>Hello neighbour!</title>
	<author>not\_surt</author>
	<datestamp>1256495580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure the average neighbor consumes far more resources than most pets do. Also, I expect most people have a much larger supply of neighbors than they do pets, making neighbors the more sustainable alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the average neighbor consumes far more resources than most pets do .
Also , I expect most people have a much larger supply of neighbors than they do pets , making neighbors the more sustainable alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the average neighbor consumes far more resources than most pets do.
Also, I expect most people have a much larger supply of neighbors than they do pets, making neighbors the more sustainable alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869353</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the pets and see its effect</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256496420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Energy consumption is an economics problem not strictly a pet problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Energy consumption is an economics problem not strictly a pet problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Energy consumption is an economics problem not strictly a pet problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869917</id>
	<title>yeah, you need to NOT substitute</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1256590140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Essentially you need to reduce your economic activity. You need to work half-time or less.</p><p>With less money to spend, you'll have less entertainment and fewer toys. Your environmental impact goes down.</p><p>The trouble is that you can't do this. Just try getting an engineering job at 15 hours per week. Tell the prospective employer that you only want to work 2 days per week. Even allowing for a proportionate drop in pay, you won't get this. We've standardized on a long work week. If you won't work long hours, somebody else will.</p><p>And why? Oh, probably an instinctive desire to aquire and display resources. It has something to do with preparing for hard times, and something to do with attracting females. We work far more than needed for survival.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Essentially you need to reduce your economic activity .
You need to work half-time or less.With less money to spend , you 'll have less entertainment and fewer toys .
Your environmental impact goes down.The trouble is that you ca n't do this .
Just try getting an engineering job at 15 hours per week .
Tell the prospective employer that you only want to work 2 days per week .
Even allowing for a proportionate drop in pay , you wo n't get this .
We 've standardized on a long work week .
If you wo n't work long hours , somebody else will.And why ?
Oh , probably an instinctive desire to aquire and display resources .
It has something to do with preparing for hard times , and something to do with attracting females .
We work far more than needed for survival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Essentially you need to reduce your economic activity.
You need to work half-time or less.With less money to spend, you'll have less entertainment and fewer toys.
Your environmental impact goes down.The trouble is that you can't do this.
Just try getting an engineering job at 15 hours per week.
Tell the prospective employer that you only want to work 2 days per week.
Even allowing for a proportionate drop in pay, you won't get this.
We've standardized on a long work week.
If you won't work long hours, somebody else will.And why?
Oh, probably an instinctive desire to aquire and display resources.
It has something to do with preparing for hard times, and something to do with attracting females.
We work far more than needed for survival.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</id>
	<title>Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how ridiculous do these "sustainable" efforts have to get before real scientists can start denying this CO2 deal again?</p><p>Right now we are treated as holocaust deniers if we dare question if CO2 is really what we should focus on. Is the microscopic amount of CO2 release actually created by humans compared to the Oceans, Volcanoes, and Bacteria really significant enough to warm the globe? If a dog produces as much CO2 as a hummer? Come on people there is clearly more to climate change than CO2, can we change our focus already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how ridiculous do these " sustainable " efforts have to get before real scientists can start denying this CO2 deal again ? Right now we are treated as holocaust deniers if we dare question if CO2 is really what we should focus on .
Is the microscopic amount of CO2 release actually created by humans compared to the Oceans , Volcanoes , and Bacteria really significant enough to warm the globe ?
If a dog produces as much CO2 as a hummer ?
Come on people there is clearly more to climate change than CO2 , can we change our focus already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how ridiculous do these "sustainable" efforts have to get before real scientists can start denying this CO2 deal again?Right now we are treated as holocaust deniers if we dare question if CO2 is really what we should focus on.
Is the microscopic amount of CO2 release actually created by humans compared to the Oceans, Volcanoes, and Bacteria really significant enough to warm the globe?
If a dog produces as much CO2 as a hummer?
Come on people there is clearly more to climate change than CO2, can we change our focus already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870513</id>
	<title>No!</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1256555220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>:(<br>Screw the environment, I like my dog</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: ( Screw the environment , I like my dog</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:(Screw the environment, I like my dog</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871985</id>
	<title>excellent!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to have a bunch of chickens and a few pigs.  but not as much as I love living in the city, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to have a bunch of chickens and a few pigs .
but not as much as I love living in the city , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to have a bunch of chickens and a few pigs.
but not as much as I love living in the city, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869665</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256500320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is he basis for this comparison of pet food and fossil fuel? e=mc2? What a load of bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is he basis for this comparison of pet food and fossil fuel ?
e = mc2 ? What a load of bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is he basis for this comparison of pet food and fossil fuel?
e=mc2? What a load of bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869295</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the pets and see its effect</title>
	<author>Jerry Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1256495820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you c&#225;n keep animals, just eat them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you c   n keep animals , just eat them : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you cán keep animals, just eat them :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869757</id>
	<title>Re:Another suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256588040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you wouldn't hate humanity so much if you didn't take such articles so seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you would n't hate humanity so much if you did n't take such articles so seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you wouldn't hate humanity so much if you didn't take such articles so seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869859</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Veggiesama</author>
	<datestamp>1256589420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm fucking fed up with people...  plastic bags that fucking fall apart... Fucking hypocrites!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... What a fucking joke... stop fucking the environment? No you don't need to fucking eat Fido. Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime... The one reason we're fucking up there environment is that there's about 6.5 BILLION people...</p></div><p>So the only fucking way to save the fucking environment is to stop fucking so much?</p><p>I'm so fucking confused!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fucking fed up with people... plastic bags that fucking fall apart... Fucking hypocrites !
... What a fucking joke... stop fucking the environment ?
No you do n't need to fucking eat Fido .
Do n't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime... The one reason we 're fucking up there environment is that there 's about 6.5 BILLION people...So the only fucking way to save the fucking environment is to stop fucking so much ? I 'm so fucking confused !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fucking fed up with people...  plastic bags that fucking fall apart... Fucking hypocrites!
... What a fucking joke... stop fucking the environment?
No you don't need to fucking eat Fido.
Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime... The one reason we're fucking up there environment is that there's about 6.5 BILLION people...So the only fucking way to save the fucking environment is to stop fucking so much?I'm so fucking confused!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869651</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1256500200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Want to know what you can do to stop fucking the environment? No you don't need to fucking eat Fido. Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime. Want to be really good? Have just one.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Choosing to be the lone martyr is as effective as being the lone yeast cell in the bottle of sugary water that doesn't reproduce. Individually deciding not to have kids won't work. Population control needs enforcement from government. No way I'm taking one for the team while the free riding asshole over the road has 17 kids because his god wills it, or if the government of the day decides to import someone new (through laws or lax border security) for every child I decide not to have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to know what you can do to stop fucking the environment ?
No you do n't need to fucking eat Fido .
Do n't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime .
Want to be really good ?
Have just one .
Choosing to be the lone martyr is as effective as being the lone yeast cell in the bottle of sugary water that does n't reproduce .
Individually deciding not to have kids wo n't work .
Population control needs enforcement from government .
No way I 'm taking one for the team while the free riding asshole over the road has 17 kids because his god wills it , or if the government of the day decides to import someone new ( through laws or lax border security ) for every child I decide not to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to know what you can do to stop fucking the environment?
No you don't need to fucking eat Fido.
Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime.
Want to be really good?
Have just one.
Choosing to be the lone martyr is as effective as being the lone yeast cell in the bottle of sugary water that doesn't reproduce.
Individually deciding not to have kids won't work.
Population control needs enforcement from government.
No way I'm taking one for the team while the free riding asshole over the road has 17 kids because his god wills it, or if the government of the day decides to import someone new (through laws or lax border security) for every child I decide not to have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872431</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much anger... lol.    Their are many valid criticisms of the environmental craze, but none of the ones you listed are among them.</p><p>1) Replacement of incandescent light bulbs w/ fluorescent are one of the cheapest way to lower energy consumption...  It's not 20x the cost, it's maybe 5x the cost, and offers up the same level of brightness at 1/4 the wattage. And lasts a lot longer.   Sure it would probably be slightly cheaper to stick to multiple incandescent light bulbs, but we're talking a few extra dollars here (taking energy saved into account), for a lot less energy consumed.  When LED light bulbs are readily available, people will shift over to it.</p><p>2) Biodegradable plastic bags are a GOOD thing.. regular plastic can break down quickly in the ocean, but it can take hundreds of years to actually dissolve. Mother nature is not equipped to handle this, and the consequences of this over the long term cannot be predicted (although common sense would say the impact would be very bad) .</p><p>Also contrary to popular belief, paper is generally not bad for the environment as the trees we use to produce them quite literally grow faster then we are able to cut them down.  (So in fact, the process of recycling paper is bad for the environment).   Trees are a sustainable resource, and the ones we use for paper can mature in only 5-10 years.. More people need to be educated with this.</p><p>3) I spent about 60 seconds on google trying to find a link saying that solar hot water systems cost more environmentally then they save, but with no luck.  You'll have to give me some kind of source for this before I can believe it.</p><p>4) I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  You're saying that water is only scarce because we recycle/treat it (w/ chemicals etc)? This makes no sense whatsoever.  Why would we recycle water in the first place if their wasn't a shortage? Is this all just anger and not being allowed to wash your car with a hose in the summer? Or at the idea that humans are not willing to drink or bathe in dirty water?</p><p>lol. You are getting angry over having to spend nickels and dimes while ignoring the actual problems with the environmental movement. E.g. the billions of dollars wasted in taxpayer money every year on recycling paper/plastic, when it has been proven over and over again to cause more environmental damage then it save (Recycling aluminium cans though is good  - as proven by the fact that private companies are willing to buy empty cans).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much anger... lol. Their are many valid criticisms of the environmental craze , but none of the ones you listed are among them.1 ) Replacement of incandescent light bulbs w/ fluorescent are one of the cheapest way to lower energy consumption... It 's not 20x the cost , it 's maybe 5x the cost , and offers up the same level of brightness at 1/4 the wattage .
And lasts a lot longer .
Sure it would probably be slightly cheaper to stick to multiple incandescent light bulbs , but we 're talking a few extra dollars here ( taking energy saved into account ) , for a lot less energy consumed .
When LED light bulbs are readily available , people will shift over to it.2 ) Biodegradable plastic bags are a GOOD thing.. regular plastic can break down quickly in the ocean , but it can take hundreds of years to actually dissolve .
Mother nature is not equipped to handle this , and the consequences of this over the long term can not be predicted ( although common sense would say the impact would be very bad ) .Also contrary to popular belief , paper is generally not bad for the environment as the trees we use to produce them quite literally grow faster then we are able to cut them down .
( So in fact , the process of recycling paper is bad for the environment ) .
Trees are a sustainable resource , and the ones we use for paper can mature in only 5-10 years.. More people need to be educated with this.3 ) I spent about 60 seconds on google trying to find a link saying that solar hot water systems cost more environmentally then they save , but with no luck .
You 'll have to give me some kind of source for this before I can believe it.4 ) I 'm not sure what you 're trying to say here .
You 're saying that water is only scarce because we recycle/treat it ( w/ chemicals etc ) ?
This makes no sense whatsoever .
Why would we recycle water in the first place if their was n't a shortage ?
Is this all just anger and not being allowed to wash your car with a hose in the summer ?
Or at the idea that humans are not willing to drink or bathe in dirty water ? lol .
You are getting angry over having to spend nickels and dimes while ignoring the actual problems with the environmental movement .
E.g. the billions of dollars wasted in taxpayer money every year on recycling paper/plastic , when it has been proven over and over again to cause more environmental damage then it save ( Recycling aluminium cans though is good - as proven by the fact that private companies are willing to buy empty cans ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much anger... lol.    Their are many valid criticisms of the environmental craze, but none of the ones you listed are among them.1) Replacement of incandescent light bulbs w/ fluorescent are one of the cheapest way to lower energy consumption...  It's not 20x the cost, it's maybe 5x the cost, and offers up the same level of brightness at 1/4 the wattage.
And lasts a lot longer.
Sure it would probably be slightly cheaper to stick to multiple incandescent light bulbs, but we're talking a few extra dollars here (taking energy saved into account), for a lot less energy consumed.
When LED light bulbs are readily available, people will shift over to it.2) Biodegradable plastic bags are a GOOD thing.. regular plastic can break down quickly in the ocean, but it can take hundreds of years to actually dissolve.
Mother nature is not equipped to handle this, and the consequences of this over the long term cannot be predicted (although common sense would say the impact would be very bad) .Also contrary to popular belief, paper is generally not bad for the environment as the trees we use to produce them quite literally grow faster then we are able to cut them down.
(So in fact, the process of recycling paper is bad for the environment).
Trees are a sustainable resource, and the ones we use for paper can mature in only 5-10 years.. More people need to be educated with this.3) I spent about 60 seconds on google trying to find a link saying that solar hot water systems cost more environmentally then they save, but with no luck.
You'll have to give me some kind of source for this before I can believe it.4) I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
You're saying that water is only scarce because we recycle/treat it (w/ chemicals etc)?
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Why would we recycle water in the first place if their wasn't a shortage?
Is this all just anger and not being allowed to wash your car with a hose in the summer?
Or at the idea that humans are not willing to drink or bathe in dirty water?lol.
You are getting angry over having to spend nickels and dimes while ignoring the actual problems with the environmental movement.
E.g. the billions of dollars wasted in taxpayer money every year on recycling paper/plastic, when it has been proven over and over again to cause more environmental damage then it save (Recycling aluminium cans though is good  - as proven by the fact that private companies are willing to buy empty cans).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873211</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256575800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that we are putting animals on the same level as people, we are putting people on the same level as animals.</p><p>
&nbsp; Some people are not even high enough on the scale to be even with animals.  Ask any pet owner too choose whether the last seat on a rescue helecopter should go to their family pet or a child molester or some other criminal and they wouldn't even hesitate to answer their pet. </p><p>As far as the child is concerned, I don't have much hope for it.  It doesn't matter which side of the debate you fall on in "nature vs nuture", the simple fact is that Stupid people beget more Stupid people either through their genetics or the poor home environment that they create.  We spend so much time running around trying to save everyone from themselves.  Maybe its time to stop and let natural selection take its course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that we are putting animals on the same level as people , we are putting people on the same level as animals .
  Some people are not even high enough on the scale to be even with animals .
Ask any pet owner too choose whether the last seat on a rescue helecopter should go to their family pet or a child molester or some other criminal and they would n't even hesitate to answer their pet .
As far as the child is concerned , I do n't have much hope for it .
It does n't matter which side of the debate you fall on in " nature vs nuture " , the simple fact is that Stupid people beget more Stupid people either through their genetics or the poor home environment that they create .
We spend so much time running around trying to save everyone from themselves .
Maybe its time to stop and let natural selection take its course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that we are putting animals on the same level as people, we are putting people on the same level as animals.
  Some people are not even high enough on the scale to be even with animals.
Ask any pet owner too choose whether the last seat on a rescue helecopter should go to their family pet or a child molester or some other criminal and they wouldn't even hesitate to answer their pet.
As far as the child is concerned, I don't have much hope for it.
It doesn't matter which side of the debate you fall on in "nature vs nuture", the simple fact is that Stupid people beget more Stupid people either through their genetics or the poor home environment that they create.
We spend so much time running around trying to save everyone from themselves.
Maybe its time to stop and let natural selection take its course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870263</id>
	<title>hardly evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256551920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm mostly with you on this one, but prisoners aren't random normal humans. They are generally evil.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, they aren't.   A significant percentage are there for drug crimes, prostitution, etc.   You can be labelled as a sex offender and go to jail because you peed in an alley.   We have moved well beyond the stage where everyone in  jail can be considered evil.   Are there bad people in jail?   Certainly.   But being convicted by a jury doesn't mean you really did it, or that it went down the way the prosecutor said.   Cops lie, witnesses lie (or misremember), evidence gets planted|lost|tainted|misinterpreted, etc.  Many have been released from death row after they were exonerated by DNA evidence.   In short, the system is far from infallible, and even when it works flawlessly many who are far from "evil" are caught up in it.   Don't fool  yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm mostly with you on this one , but prisoners are n't random normal humans .
They are generally evil .
No , they are n't .
A significant percentage are there for drug crimes , prostitution , etc .
You can be labelled as a sex offender and go to jail because you peed in an alley .
We have moved well beyond the stage where everyone in jail can be considered evil .
Are there bad people in jail ?
Certainly. But being convicted by a jury does n't mean you really did it , or that it went down the way the prosecutor said .
Cops lie , witnesses lie ( or misremember ) , evidence gets planted | lost | tainted | misinterpreted , etc .
Many have been released from death row after they were exonerated by DNA evidence .
In short , the system is far from infallible , and even when it works flawlessly many who are far from " evil " are caught up in it .
Do n't fool yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm mostly with you on this one, but prisoners aren't random normal humans.
They are generally evil.
No, they aren't.
A significant percentage are there for drug crimes, prostitution, etc.
You can be labelled as a sex offender and go to jail because you peed in an alley.
We have moved well beyond the stage where everyone in  jail can be considered evil.
Are there bad people in jail?
Certainly.   But being convicted by a jury doesn't mean you really did it, or that it went down the way the prosecutor said.
Cops lie, witnesses lie (or misremember), evidence gets planted|lost|tainted|misinterpreted, etc.
Many have been released from death row after they were exonerated by DNA evidence.
In short, the system is far from infallible, and even when it works flawlessly many who are far from "evil" are caught up in it.
Don't fool  yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869619</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256499720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's possible for CO2 to be both the cause of climate change and for the proposed solutions to be very very wrong.  The problem is that both sides have polarized to the point where a sensible solution is out of the question.  The left is completely convinced that heavy government control is the only way to solve the problem and the right is convinced there is no problem.  It's not hard to see that situation as being insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible for CO2 to be both the cause of climate change and for the proposed solutions to be very very wrong .
The problem is that both sides have polarized to the point where a sensible solution is out of the question .
The left is completely convinced that heavy government control is the only way to solve the problem and the right is convinced there is no problem .
It 's not hard to see that situation as being insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible for CO2 to be both the cause of climate change and for the proposed solutions to be very very wrong.
The problem is that both sides have polarized to the point where a sensible solution is out of the question.
The left is completely convinced that heavy government control is the only way to solve the problem and the right is convinced there is no problem.
It's not hard to see that situation as being insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869239</id>
	<title>"No Dog On Board" sign Makes SUV's Safe From ELF!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent. Now I just have to put a "No Dog on Board" sign on my SUV and The ELF won't hate me anymore!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent .
Now I just have to put a " No Dog on Board " sign on my SUV and The ELF wo n't hate me anymore !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent.
Now I just have to put a "No Dog on Board" sign on my SUV and The ELF won't hate me anymore!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871349</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256566140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only trigger I could identify was the dog.</p></div><p>Your father was already fucked up in the head (let's talk about mine sometime, you'll see I mean nothing bad about yours by that) and you only noticed because his lifeline was lost. It's always unfortunate when people become broken to the point that they identify better with their pets than other humans. It's probably more common than not among the elderly, who we tend to sweep into a corner when convenient. I don't have a solution for that; I can't stand my parents, they're actually one of the biggest sources of problems in my life and they did little to deserve my attention at this phase, especially my father. But when we identify with animals better than humans, we're not being very good humans. Then again, most of us are surrounded with people to whom animals are far preferable.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd long since stopped caring for and identifying with animals, and most people, generally speaking - I fancy myself something of a hardass. But for a lot of people, pets continue to stand in as surrogates for confronting lonliness, fear, love, and death throughout their lives.</p></div><p>This is just not healthy. It might be more healthy than having nothing, but IMO it's a crutch that prevents people from having to connect with other humans.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They would be the first voluntary, elective connection a lot of children make to another being, the first thing they encounter subordinate to themselves,</p></div><p>usually that's younger children, unless you're raising children without others around... which again, is unnatural and unhealthy</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and most obviously the first time they confront mortality, in time-honored sitcom tradition.</p></div><p>only because we disguise death in our culture.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Most importantly, no pet will ever verbally challenge its master's belief in it, well except maybe a parrot.</p></div><p>Yeah, my Sun Conure "Baby" (she was named that when I adopted her from some losers who "no longer had time for her" after ten years... on a 25 year lifespan that's pretty fucking harsh) says "Erk you!" to that idea. Just ask her if I'm in charge some time...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My father had lost most of his army buddies, relatives he was close with, et cetera. He handled all of those better than the dog. And it wasn't even his dog.</p></div><p>That's sad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only trigger I could identify was the dog.Your father was already fucked up in the head ( let 's talk about mine sometime , you 'll see I mean nothing bad about yours by that ) and you only noticed because his lifeline was lost .
It 's always unfortunate when people become broken to the point that they identify better with their pets than other humans .
It 's probably more common than not among the elderly , who we tend to sweep into a corner when convenient .
I do n't have a solution for that ; I ca n't stand my parents , they 're actually one of the biggest sources of problems in my life and they did little to deserve my attention at this phase , especially my father .
But when we identify with animals better than humans , we 're not being very good humans .
Then again , most of us are surrounded with people to whom animals are far preferable.I 'd long since stopped caring for and identifying with animals , and most people , generally speaking - I fancy myself something of a hardass .
But for a lot of people , pets continue to stand in as surrogates for confronting lonliness , fear , love , and death throughout their lives.This is just not healthy .
It might be more healthy than having nothing , but IMO it 's a crutch that prevents people from having to connect with other humans.They would be the first voluntary , elective connection a lot of children make to another being , the first thing they encounter subordinate to themselves,usually that 's younger children , unless you 're raising children without others around... which again , is unnatural and unhealthyand most obviously the first time they confront mortality , in time-honored sitcom tradition.only because we disguise death in our culture.Most importantly , no pet will ever verbally challenge its master 's belief in it , well except maybe a parrot.Yeah , my Sun Conure " Baby " ( she was named that when I adopted her from some losers who " no longer had time for her " after ten years... on a 25 year lifespan that 's pretty fucking harsh ) says " Erk you !
" to that idea .
Just ask her if I 'm in charge some time...My father had lost most of his army buddies , relatives he was close with , et cetera .
He handled all of those better than the dog .
And it was n't even his dog.That 's sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only trigger I could identify was the dog.Your father was already fucked up in the head (let's talk about mine sometime, you'll see I mean nothing bad about yours by that) and you only noticed because his lifeline was lost.
It's always unfortunate when people become broken to the point that they identify better with their pets than other humans.
It's probably more common than not among the elderly, who we tend to sweep into a corner when convenient.
I don't have a solution for that; I can't stand my parents, they're actually one of the biggest sources of problems in my life and they did little to deserve my attention at this phase, especially my father.
But when we identify with animals better than humans, we're not being very good humans.
Then again, most of us are surrounded with people to whom animals are far preferable.I'd long since stopped caring for and identifying with animals, and most people, generally speaking - I fancy myself something of a hardass.
But for a lot of people, pets continue to stand in as surrogates for confronting lonliness, fear, love, and death throughout their lives.This is just not healthy.
It might be more healthy than having nothing, but IMO it's a crutch that prevents people from having to connect with other humans.They would be the first voluntary, elective connection a lot of children make to another being, the first thing they encounter subordinate to themselves,usually that's younger children, unless you're raising children without others around... which again, is unnatural and unhealthyand most obviously the first time they confront mortality, in time-honored sitcom tradition.only because we disguise death in our culture.Most importantly, no pet will ever verbally challenge its master's belief in it, well except maybe a parrot.Yeah, my Sun Conure "Baby" (she was named that when I adopted her from some losers who "no longer had time for her" after ten years... on a 25 year lifespan that's pretty fucking harsh) says "Erk you!
" to that idea.
Just ask her if I'm in charge some time...My father had lost most of his army buddies, relatives he was close with, et cetera.
He handled all of those better than the dog.
And it wasn't even his dog.That's sad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869605</id>
	<title>The obvious solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256499540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replace your dog with a goat, or sheep.  Now you have a pet that feeds itself in the yard, and you don't need to buy (or run) a lawn mower anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replace your dog with a goat , or sheep .
Now you have a pet that feeds itself in the yard , and you do n't need to buy ( or run ) a lawn mower anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replace your dog with a goat, or sheep.
Now you have a pet that feeds itself in the yard, and you don't need to buy (or run) a lawn mower anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874933</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1256583840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away. Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail. Fucking hypocrites!</p></div></blockquote><p>

I actually use those bags as trash bags in the bathrooms and bedrooms, and at the office. They are the perfect size for desk/sink/bed-side wastebaskets! I also use them for food waste that can't go down the garbage disposal (hard bones and such) so I can take the food waste out before the trashcan is full.

Otherwise, I try to remember to ask for paper bags, because they are renewable, paper also comes in handy, and also because I am helping thin out old-growth forests so that the forests will regenerate.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

I am no treehugger and see through it for the money-grab it is, with Al Gore's goal of founding new "carbon offset" markets (just like NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. for company shares) but I am into conservation because it benefits ME.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable " green " " enviro " bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away .
Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we could n't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail .
Fucking hypocrites !
I actually use those bags as trash bags in the bathrooms and bedrooms , and at the office .
They are the perfect size for desk/sink/bed-side wastebaskets !
I also use them for food waste that ca n't go down the garbage disposal ( hard bones and such ) so I can take the food waste out before the trashcan is full .
Otherwise , I try to remember to ask for paper bags , because they are renewable , paper also comes in handy , and also because I am helping thin out old-growth forests so that the forests will regenerate .
: - ) I am no treehugger and see through it for the money-grab it is , with Al Gore 's goal of founding new " carbon offset " markets ( just like NYSE , NASDAQ , etc .
for company shares ) but I am into conservation because it benefits ME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away.
Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail.
Fucking hypocrites!
I actually use those bags as trash bags in the bathrooms and bedrooms, and at the office.
They are the perfect size for desk/sink/bed-side wastebaskets!
I also use them for food waste that can't go down the garbage disposal (hard bones and such) so I can take the food waste out before the trashcan is full.
Otherwise, I try to remember to ask for paper bags, because they are renewable, paper also comes in handy, and also because I am helping thin out old-growth forests so that the forests will regenerate.
:-)

I am no treehugger and see through it for the money-grab it is, with Al Gore's goal of founding new "carbon offset" markets (just like NYSE, NASDAQ, etc.
for company shares) but I am into conservation because it benefits ME.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871167</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main concern with cars isn't so much how much fuel they use, but how much pollution they put out...</p></div><p>No, the main concern with cars is their lifetime energy consumption which implies their lifetime emissions. Up to a third of the lifetime energy cost of a typical car is spent in production; a Hybrid vehicle is significantly higher since it has another power plant and an electricity storage system added. (The battery used for operating the alternator and starting an ordinary car doesn't count, because it's not like they just wired more batteries in parallel.)</p><p>Basically every food crop in the USA not labeled as "Organic" was fertilized with petroleum. This is kind of hard to wrap your head around, but just chew on it for a while. That's why the energy balance on corn ethanol is so shitty; not only do we harvest and process it using energy from fossil fuels, but we actually fertilize the corn with oil in the first place. Consequently, ethanol is only about 15\% energy-positive; it turns out to be a worse energy-storage medium than hydrogen, with only the benefit that it can be handled with the existing fueling infrastructure with nothing more than replacement seals. (Even a high ethanol percentage in gasoline is deadly to natural seals, and fuel mixing is responsible for the destruction of many older vehicles. Shit, I have to use additive with the new low-sulfur diesel in my old MBZ and International IDIs, although I don't grudge it.)</p><p>The same is true of pet food; that's not a wild grass, that's a grain. It was fertilized with petroleum and then it was shipped to a plant where it was ground up with a bunch of lousy meat typically produced in feedlot conditions, and cooked into pellets which are then packed into bags and shipped some more. In fact, the materials are a lot more likely to be shipped a long distance than in the case of auto fuels, which are produced as close to the point of consumption as possible.</p><p>I haven't run the numbers, and I don't care; only realize that there is no logical reason pets can't have a significant impact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main concern with cars is n't so much how much fuel they use , but how much pollution they put out...No , the main concern with cars is their lifetime energy consumption which implies their lifetime emissions .
Up to a third of the lifetime energy cost of a typical car is spent in production ; a Hybrid vehicle is significantly higher since it has another power plant and an electricity storage system added .
( The battery used for operating the alternator and starting an ordinary car does n't count , because it 's not like they just wired more batteries in parallel .
) Basically every food crop in the USA not labeled as " Organic " was fertilized with petroleum .
This is kind of hard to wrap your head around , but just chew on it for a while .
That 's why the energy balance on corn ethanol is so shitty ; not only do we harvest and process it using energy from fossil fuels , but we actually fertilize the corn with oil in the first place .
Consequently , ethanol is only about 15 \ % energy-positive ; it turns out to be a worse energy-storage medium than hydrogen , with only the benefit that it can be handled with the existing fueling infrastructure with nothing more than replacement seals .
( Even a high ethanol percentage in gasoline is deadly to natural seals , and fuel mixing is responsible for the destruction of many older vehicles .
Shit , I have to use additive with the new low-sulfur diesel in my old MBZ and International IDIs , although I do n't grudge it .
) The same is true of pet food ; that 's not a wild grass , that 's a grain .
It was fertilized with petroleum and then it was shipped to a plant where it was ground up with a bunch of lousy meat typically produced in feedlot conditions , and cooked into pellets which are then packed into bags and shipped some more .
In fact , the materials are a lot more likely to be shipped a long distance than in the case of auto fuels , which are produced as close to the point of consumption as possible.I have n't run the numbers , and I do n't care ; only realize that there is no logical reason pets ca n't have a significant impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main concern with cars isn't so much how much fuel they use, but how much pollution they put out...No, the main concern with cars is their lifetime energy consumption which implies their lifetime emissions.
Up to a third of the lifetime energy cost of a typical car is spent in production; a Hybrid vehicle is significantly higher since it has another power plant and an electricity storage system added.
(The battery used for operating the alternator and starting an ordinary car doesn't count, because it's not like they just wired more batteries in parallel.
)Basically every food crop in the USA not labeled as "Organic" was fertilized with petroleum.
This is kind of hard to wrap your head around, but just chew on it for a while.
That's why the energy balance on corn ethanol is so shitty; not only do we harvest and process it using energy from fossil fuels, but we actually fertilize the corn with oil in the first place.
Consequently, ethanol is only about 15\% energy-positive; it turns out to be a worse energy-storage medium than hydrogen, with only the benefit that it can be handled with the existing fueling infrastructure with nothing more than replacement seals.
(Even a high ethanol percentage in gasoline is deadly to natural seals, and fuel mixing is responsible for the destruction of many older vehicles.
Shit, I have to use additive with the new low-sulfur diesel in my old MBZ and International IDIs, although I don't grudge it.
)The same is true of pet food; that's not a wild grass, that's a grain.
It was fertilized with petroleum and then it was shipped to a plant where it was ground up with a bunch of lousy meat typically produced in feedlot conditions, and cooked into pellets which are then packed into bags and shipped some more.
In fact, the materials are a lot more likely to be shipped a long distance than in the case of auto fuels, which are produced as close to the point of consumption as possible.I haven't run the numbers, and I don't care; only realize that there is no logical reason pets can't have a significant impact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871153</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalist nonsense</title>
	<author>Picard\_1701</author>
	<datestamp>1256564520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They haven't even done anything yet you douche.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't even done anything yet you douche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't even done anything yet you douche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871617</id>
	<title>Re:A couple of points</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256567820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- The comparison of eco footprints between pets and cars is flawed, as long as most cars run on fossil fuels. Pets need arable land, cars consume fossil fuels and add CO2 to the biosphere.</p></div><p>How do you think that land is worked? What do you think that land is fertilized with? The answer to both questions is <strong>fossil fuels</strong>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel/ gives the example of 445.5 m2 of land for 47.4l Biodiesel.</p></div><p>Making fuel from topsoil is wrongheaded. You make biodiesel from algae, not from soy. In fact, Soy is highly acid and one of the worst sources of oil feedstock; it has high oil production, which is why it is often mentioned, but the oil is shitty. We could produce the nation's fuel needs by only using algae in the desert. (Arguments about the desirability of desert to be saved for another time.) Of course, it would be best to also reduce our fuel needs. One way would be to reduce the relevance of the federal highway system, and subsidize rail instead; it's much more efficient for shipping heavy goods long distances. Another way would be to reduce shipping by increasing point-of-use production.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- The comparison of eco footprints between pets and cars is flawed , as long as most cars run on fossil fuels .
Pets need arable land , cars consume fossil fuels and add CO2 to the biosphere.How do you think that land is worked ?
What do you think that land is fertilized with ?
The answer to both questions is fossil fuels.http : //de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel/ gives the example of 445.5 m2 of land for 47.4l Biodiesel.Making fuel from topsoil is wrongheaded .
You make biodiesel from algae , not from soy .
In fact , Soy is highly acid and one of the worst sources of oil feedstock ; it has high oil production , which is why it is often mentioned , but the oil is shitty .
We could produce the nation 's fuel needs by only using algae in the desert .
( Arguments about the desirability of desert to be saved for another time .
) Of course , it would be best to also reduce our fuel needs .
One way would be to reduce the relevance of the federal highway system , and subsidize rail instead ; it 's much more efficient for shipping heavy goods long distances .
Another way would be to reduce shipping by increasing point-of-use production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- The comparison of eco footprints between pets and cars is flawed, as long as most cars run on fossil fuels.
Pets need arable land, cars consume fossil fuels and add CO2 to the biosphere.How do you think that land is worked?
What do you think that land is fertilized with?
The answer to both questions is fossil fuels.http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel/ gives the example of 445.5 m2 of land for 47.4l Biodiesel.Making fuel from topsoil is wrongheaded.
You make biodiesel from algae, not from soy.
In fact, Soy is highly acid and one of the worst sources of oil feedstock; it has high oil production, which is why it is often mentioned, but the oil is shitty.
We could produce the nation's fuel needs by only using algae in the desert.
(Arguments about the desirability of desert to be saved for another time.
) Of course, it would be best to also reduce our fuel needs.
One way would be to reduce the relevance of the federal highway system, and subsidize rail instead; it's much more efficient for shipping heavy goods long distances.
Another way would be to reduce shipping by increasing point-of-use production.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871163</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1256564640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After she was discharged , I was criticizing the family for having a 100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression living in the house with their 4 year old child. One of my co-workers got really angry at me, saying "we don't know that that child did to provoke the dog! Did you even ask that?" She blamed the kid and sided with the dog. I was dumbfounded. It fascinates me that people can work alongside one another and have profoundly divergent value systems.</p></div><p>With incredibly few exceptions, that literally make the news because they're so shockingly unusual, dogs don't just randomly mutilate their family/pack members.  With incredibly few exceptions, untrained kids will randomly provoke dogs until taught how to behave.</p><p>You are looking in the rear view mirror, not planning for the future.</p><p>By your plan, removing the family dog but not training the child, in the future the child will die when it inevitably harasses an even larger stronger dog, and that dog won't have any mercy because it is not part of the family "pack".  By your co workers plan, in the future, the child will live because it will understand how to properly handle a dog, or at least how not to get hurt by a dog.  I'm sure your co worker thinks you're just as crazy as you think they are.</p><p>Interestingly, in your post, neither of you blame the family for not teaching the kid to properly handle a dog, which in a world full of pet dogs, is pretty much a mandatory learned skill, unless you enjoy stitches/death.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After she was discharged , I was criticizing the family for having a 100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression living in the house with their 4 year old child .
One of my co-workers got really angry at me , saying " we do n't know that that child did to provoke the dog !
Did you even ask that ?
" She blamed the kid and sided with the dog .
I was dumbfounded .
It fascinates me that people can work alongside one another and have profoundly divergent value systems.With incredibly few exceptions , that literally make the news because they 're so shockingly unusual , dogs do n't just randomly mutilate their family/pack members .
With incredibly few exceptions , untrained kids will randomly provoke dogs until taught how to behave.You are looking in the rear view mirror , not planning for the future.By your plan , removing the family dog but not training the child , in the future the child will die when it inevitably harasses an even larger stronger dog , and that dog wo n't have any mercy because it is not part of the family " pack " .
By your co workers plan , in the future , the child will live because it will understand how to properly handle a dog , or at least how not to get hurt by a dog .
I 'm sure your co worker thinks you 're just as crazy as you think they are.Interestingly , in your post , neither of you blame the family for not teaching the kid to properly handle a dog , which in a world full of pet dogs , is pretty much a mandatory learned skill , unless you enjoy stitches/death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After she was discharged , I was criticizing the family for having a 100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression living in the house with their 4 year old child.
One of my co-workers got really angry at me, saying "we don't know that that child did to provoke the dog!
Did you even ask that?
" She blamed the kid and sided with the dog.
I was dumbfounded.
It fascinates me that people can work alongside one another and have profoundly divergent value systems.With incredibly few exceptions, that literally make the news because they're so shockingly unusual, dogs don't just randomly mutilate their family/pack members.
With incredibly few exceptions, untrained kids will randomly provoke dogs until taught how to behave.You are looking in the rear view mirror, not planning for the future.By your plan, removing the family dog but not training the child, in the future the child will die when it inevitably harasses an even larger stronger dog, and that dog won't have any mercy because it is not part of the family "pack".
By your co workers plan, in the future, the child will live because it will understand how to properly handle a dog, or at least how not to get hurt by a dog.
I'm sure your co worker thinks you're just as crazy as you think they are.Interestingly, in your post, neither of you blame the family for not teaching the kid to properly handle a dog, which in a world full of pet dogs, is pretty much a mandatory learned skill, unless you enjoy stitches/death.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869447</id>
	<title>Re:What about emissions ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256497560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, I don't drive 10km per year. I drive like 30-40km per year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I do n't drive 10km per year .
I drive like 30-40km per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I don't drive 10km per year.
I drive like 30-40km per year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869405</id>
	<title>Do your part</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256497140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slaughter all your pets, you eco freak hypocrites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slaughter all your pets , you eco freak hypocrites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slaughter all your pets, you eco freak hypocrites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869937</id>
	<title>Or have kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256590620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a cat, but we don't have any kids. I'm sure many people view pets as child substitutes. My cat may eat a lot, but next to a human being that will live longer an consume more and isn't covered in fur naturally, my money is on a huge net saving in resources and carbon emissions by having a cat instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a cat , but we do n't have any kids .
I 'm sure many people view pets as child substitutes .
My cat may eat a lot , but next to a human being that will live longer an consume more and is n't covered in fur naturally , my money is on a huge net saving in resources and carbon emissions by having a cat instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a cat, but we don't have any kids.
I'm sure many people view pets as child substitutes.
My cat may eat a lot, but next to a human being that will live longer an consume more and isn't covered in fur naturally, my money is on a huge net saving in resources and carbon emissions by having a cat instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873611</id>
	<title>[citation needed]</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, show your work. Where are the references to these supposed quotes? *drums fingers*...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , show your work .
Where are the references to these supposed quotes ?
* drums fingers * .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, show your work.
Where are the references to these supposed quotes?
*drums fingers*...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869433</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1256497380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know, sounds like a really useful statistic to quote to Prius-driving dog owners. Mainly to confuse them. "You think you're saving the environment....Bwahaha"</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know , sounds like a really useful statistic to quote to Prius-driving dog owners .
Mainly to confuse them .
" You think you 're saving the environment....Bwahaha "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know, sounds like a really useful statistic to quote to Prius-driving dog owners.
Mainly to confuse them.
"You think you're saving the environment....Bwahaha"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869923</id>
	<title>Augh!  Really bad energy math!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256590260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried feeding my dog gasoline, and I tried putting Purina in my gas tank. Now I've got to go see both the mechanic and the vet, but I'm not sure who should see which patient... This is a classic case of apples and oranges. You can't freely exchange food energy and fuel energy in today's society, so it's meaningless to compare their energy costs.</p><p>When you look at the calculation in detail, they work out the amount of farmland per dog (0.83 hectares), then convert the amount of energy used by an SUV into acres of land, by using THE INTENSITY OF SUNLIGHT on that land surface. So yeah, if we had solar-powered cars that worked at 100\% efficiency, their calculation makes sense. Otherwise, it's rubbish.</p><p>Here's a better calculation: The U.S. has 1.5 hectares of farmland per capita. If every family of 4 owned one big dog, we'd be devoting 15\% of our farmland to feeding pets. It's a noticeable chunk of our food resource, but it's not an SUV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried feeding my dog gasoline , and I tried putting Purina in my gas tank .
Now I 've got to go see both the mechanic and the vet , but I 'm not sure who should see which patient... This is a classic case of apples and oranges .
You ca n't freely exchange food energy and fuel energy in today 's society , so it 's meaningless to compare their energy costs.When you look at the calculation in detail , they work out the amount of farmland per dog ( 0.83 hectares ) , then convert the amount of energy used by an SUV into acres of land , by using THE INTENSITY OF SUNLIGHT on that land surface .
So yeah , if we had solar-powered cars that worked at 100 \ % efficiency , their calculation makes sense .
Otherwise , it 's rubbish.Here 's a better calculation : The U.S. has 1.5 hectares of farmland per capita .
If every family of 4 owned one big dog , we 'd be devoting 15 \ % of our farmland to feeding pets .
It 's a noticeable chunk of our food resource , but it 's not an SUV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried feeding my dog gasoline, and I tried putting Purina in my gas tank.
Now I've got to go see both the mechanic and the vet, but I'm not sure who should see which patient... This is a classic case of apples and oranges.
You can't freely exchange food energy and fuel energy in today's society, so it's meaningless to compare their energy costs.When you look at the calculation in detail, they work out the amount of farmland per dog (0.83 hectares), then convert the amount of energy used by an SUV into acres of land, by using THE INTENSITY OF SUNLIGHT on that land surface.
So yeah, if we had solar-powered cars that worked at 100\% efficiency, their calculation makes sense.
Otherwise, it's rubbish.Here's a better calculation: The U.S. has 1.5 hectares of farmland per capita.
If every family of 4 owned one big dog, we'd be devoting 15\% of our farmland to feeding pets.
It's a noticeable chunk of our food resource, but it's not an SUV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870373</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256553480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you kindly stop leaving your environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer all over the sidewalk?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you kindly stop leaving your environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer all over the sidewalk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you kindly stop leaving your environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer all over the sidewalk?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869537</id>
	<title>Save the Planet, Eat Your Children</title>
	<author>uarch</author>
	<datestamp>1256498580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not?  They certainly must have a much bigger carbon footprint than the family dog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
They certainly must have a much bigger carbon footprint than the family dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
They certainly must have a much bigger carbon footprint than the family dog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872657</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256572980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideas</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you that just solved the deficit!  Although, I feel like you could also add taxes to stupid politicians' ideas.</p><p>Now we're talking a surplus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideasI think you that just solved the deficit !
Although , I feel like you could also add taxes to stupid politicians ' ideas.Now we 're talking a surplus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideasI think you that just solved the deficit!
Although, I feel like you could also add taxes to stupid politicians' ideas.Now we're talking a surplus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869523</id>
	<title>A couple of points</title>
	<author>laron</author>
	<datestamp>1256498460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- If you are worried about the eco footprint of your dog, just reduce your own meat consumption accordingly. </p><p>- And as others have already pointed out, dog/cat food grade meat has not the same carbon foodprint as meat for human consumption. </p><p>- The comparison of eco footprints between pets and cars is flawed, as long as most cars run on fossil fuels. Pets need arable land, cars consume fossil fuels and add CO2 to the biosphere.</p><p>- Their math may be a bit off. <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel/" title="wikipedia.org">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel/</a> [wikipedia.org] gives the example of 445.5 m2 of land for 47.4l Biodiesel. Scale that up to one hectar (10,000m2) and you get 10,652 Liters of Biodiesel. You either need a <i>very</i> efficient car to go 10,000km with that (1l/100km or 235 miles per gallon) or a vastly more efficient energy plant than rapeseed. (Apologies if I made a mistake, corrections are welcome)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- If you are worried about the eco footprint of your dog , just reduce your own meat consumption accordingly .
- And as others have already pointed out , dog/cat food grade meat has not the same carbon foodprint as meat for human consumption .
- The comparison of eco footprints between pets and cars is flawed , as long as most cars run on fossil fuels .
Pets need arable land , cars consume fossil fuels and add CO2 to the biosphere.- Their math may be a bit off .
http : //de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel/ [ wikipedia.org ] gives the example of 445.5 m2 of land for 47.4l Biodiesel .
Scale that up to one hectar ( 10,000m2 ) and you get 10,652 Liters of Biodiesel .
You either need a very efficient car to go 10,000km with that ( 1l/100km or 235 miles per gallon ) or a vastly more efficient energy plant than rapeseed .
( Apologies if I made a mistake , corrections are welcome )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- If you are worried about the eco footprint of your dog, just reduce your own meat consumption accordingly.
- And as others have already pointed out, dog/cat food grade meat has not the same carbon foodprint as meat for human consumption.
- The comparison of eco footprints between pets and cars is flawed, as long as most cars run on fossil fuels.
Pets need arable land, cars consume fossil fuels and add CO2 to the biosphere.- Their math may be a bit off.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel/ [wikipedia.org] gives the example of 445.5 m2 of land for 47.4l Biodiesel.
Scale that up to one hectar (10,000m2) and you get 10,652 Liters of Biodiesel.
You either need a very efficient car to go 10,000km with that (1l/100km or 235 miles per gallon) or a vastly more efficient energy plant than rapeseed.
(Apologies if I made a mistake, corrections are welcome)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872259</id>
	<title>Re:This should actually be more or less common sen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256571180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, right.<br>In towns and villages it is enough to feed cats milk and some remains since they run around catching small prey. You see , the non-affluent places have not so much cars so that it is dangerous to let the animals live outside.<br>And non-work my ass -  why do you think egyptians worshipped cats and any agricultural civilisation was fond of them? If you have no poison or clever rats, a bunch of cats is the best thing you can have to protect your crop. Hell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,even austrohungarian army had army cats in the warehouses in WWI!<br>In my case, having a catprevented me from releasing CFC into air as it among other things slew most insects and such crap that came in, and also reduced my heating bill by warming me up, not to mention psychical benefits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right.In towns and villages it is enough to feed cats milk and some remains since they run around catching small prey .
You see , the non-affluent places have not so much cars so that it is dangerous to let the animals live outside.And non-work my ass - why do you think egyptians worshipped cats and any agricultural civilisation was fond of them ?
If you have no poison or clever rats , a bunch of cats is the best thing you can have to protect your crop .
Hell ,even austrohungarian army had army cats in the warehouses in WWI ! In my case , having a catprevented me from releasing CFC into air as it among other things slew most insects and such crap that came in , and also reduced my heating bill by warming me up , not to mention psychical benefits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.In towns and villages it is enough to feed cats milk and some remains since they run around catching small prey.
You see , the non-affluent places have not so much cars so that it is dangerous to let the animals live outside.And non-work my ass -  why do you think egyptians worshipped cats and any agricultural civilisation was fond of them?
If you have no poison or clever rats, a bunch of cats is the best thing you can have to protect your crop.
Hell ,even austrohungarian army had army cats in the warehouses in WWI!In my case, having a catprevented me from releasing CFC into air as it among other things slew most insects and such crap that came in, and also reduced my heating bill by warming me up, not to mention psychical benefits</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873341</id>
	<title>Really?  Drawing this type of conclusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we comparing animals consumption to that of cars and televisions?  It seems like someones trying to subliminally justify inefficiency. (I'm not PETA or anything, this just really sounds ridiculous to draw such correlations)</p><p>At least the pets are consuming resources that are renewable.  Can't say so much about the comparisons.</p><p>I guess I can't disagree with the conclusion that farm animals are the most efficient use of the worlds resources (since we eat them in the end), but wow, aren't there other subjects that would be more beneficial to society from the level of research that was applied to write this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we comparing animals consumption to that of cars and televisions ?
It seems like someones trying to subliminally justify inefficiency .
( I 'm not PETA or anything , this just really sounds ridiculous to draw such correlations ) At least the pets are consuming resources that are renewable .
Ca n't say so much about the comparisons.I guess I ca n't disagree with the conclusion that farm animals are the most efficient use of the worlds resources ( since we eat them in the end ) , but wow , are n't there other subjects that would be more beneficial to society from the level of research that was applied to write this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we comparing animals consumption to that of cars and televisions?
It seems like someones trying to subliminally justify inefficiency.
(I'm not PETA or anything, this just really sounds ridiculous to draw such correlations)At least the pets are consuming resources that are renewable.
Can't say so much about the comparisons.I guess I can't disagree with the conclusion that farm animals are the most efficient use of the worlds resources (since we eat them in the end), but wow, aren't there other subjects that would be more beneficial to society from the level of research that was applied to write this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29876965</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256549820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't get why this is such a difficult concept. Imagine a tank of water that is slowly leaking and getting refilled at the same rate. Now increase the refill rate slightly - and presto - the tank will eventually overflow even though the increased refill rate is "inconsequentially" larger to the normal rate. The CO2 ecosystem works in a similar way. If this has not blown your mind you should read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear\_dynamics [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex\_systems [wikipedia.org].</p></div></blockquote><p> <b>Crap</b>. Total and utter garbage. Your tank of water is a <b>linear</b> system, wereas climate is very <b>non-linear</b>.If the climate system was that unstable we would have fried or frozen a long time ago. Furthermore, from past climate proxies we know that even the last couple of thousand years the average temperature has swung a couple of degrees (C) over the course of centuries.</p><p>Systems are not stable because input and output are somehow magically exactly balanced, but because non-linearities create stable points. In case of climate; assuming we somehow manage to add 1W/m2 to the energy input, the temperature will rise a little, and then Stephan-Boltzman's law dictates the the radiant energy flux will increase with T**4, so it will find a new equilibrium somewhere.</p><p>The consensus between believers and skeptics is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to something like 0.5C increase in average global temperatures directly. All the higher and lower guesstimates that you will see are because of in my opinion very poorly understood amplification/damping mechanism. Please feel free to read the latest IPCC report, or google around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get why this is such a difficult concept .
Imagine a tank of water that is slowly leaking and getting refilled at the same rate .
Now increase the refill rate slightly - and presto - the tank will eventually overflow even though the increased refill rate is " inconsequentially " larger to the normal rate .
The CO2 ecosystem works in a similar way .
If this has not blown your mind you should read up on http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear \ _dynamics [ wikipedia.org ] and http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex \ _systems [ wikipedia.org ] .
Crap. Total and utter garbage .
Your tank of water is a linear system , wereas climate is very non-linear.If the climate system was that unstable we would have fried or frozen a long time ago .
Furthermore , from past climate proxies we know that even the last couple of thousand years the average temperature has swung a couple of degrees ( C ) over the course of centuries.Systems are not stable because input and output are somehow magically exactly balanced , but because non-linearities create stable points .
In case of climate ; assuming we somehow manage to add 1W/m2 to the energy input , the temperature will rise a little , and then Stephan-Boltzman 's law dictates the the radiant energy flux will increase with T * * 4 , so it will find a new equilibrium somewhere.The consensus between believers and skeptics is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to something like 0.5C increase in average global temperatures directly .
All the higher and lower guesstimates that you will see are because of in my opinion very poorly understood amplification/damping mechanism .
Please feel free to read the latest IPCC report , or google around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get why this is such a difficult concept.
Imagine a tank of water that is slowly leaking and getting refilled at the same rate.
Now increase the refill rate slightly - and presto - the tank will eventually overflow even though the increased refill rate is "inconsequentially" larger to the normal rate.
The CO2 ecosystem works in a similar way.
If this has not blown your mind you should read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear\_dynamics [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex\_systems [wikipedia.org].
Crap. Total and utter garbage.
Your tank of water is a linear system, wereas climate is very non-linear.If the climate system was that unstable we would have fried or frozen a long time ago.
Furthermore, from past climate proxies we know that even the last couple of thousand years the average temperature has swung a couple of degrees (C) over the course of centuries.Systems are not stable because input and output are somehow magically exactly balanced, but because non-linearities create stable points.
In case of climate; assuming we somehow manage to add 1W/m2 to the energy input, the temperature will rise a little, and then Stephan-Boltzman's law dictates the the radiant energy flux will increase with T**4, so it will find a new equilibrium somewhere.The consensus between believers and skeptics is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to something like 0.5C increase in average global temperatures directly.
All the higher and lower guesstimates that you will see are because of in my opinion very poorly understood amplification/damping mechanism.
Please feel free to read the latest IPCC report, or google around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875237</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1256585220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> When people say "we might as well eat neighbors|kids|whoever" they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level, value-wise, with the lives of humans.</i></p><p>Yes, it is crazy!  Dogs are way better than humans...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people say " we might as well eat neighbors | kids | whoever " they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level , value-wise , with the lives of humans.Yes , it is crazy !
Dogs are way better than humans.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When people say "we might as well eat neighbors|kids|whoever" they are pretty much putting the lives of animals on the level, value-wise, with the lives of humans.Yes, it is crazy!
Dogs are way better than humans...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869391</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256496960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Teach them to be frugal individuals.  Reduce what you buy, re-use what you have and recycle any cans and bottles that you can.  REcycling your cans can make you a decent amount of change that you can save for later.  Bottles often have a few cents that can be recovered by recycling them.  Turn off your lights when you're not using them, replace incandescent bulbs for high efficiency bulbs to save money on your electric bill.  It won't eliminate your carbon footprint by any stretch but every last bit helps both environmentally and in monetary terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Teach them to be frugal individuals .
Reduce what you buy , re-use what you have and recycle any cans and bottles that you can .
REcycling your cans can make you a decent amount of change that you can save for later .
Bottles often have a few cents that can be recovered by recycling them .
Turn off your lights when you 're not using them , replace incandescent bulbs for high efficiency bulbs to save money on your electric bill .
It wo n't eliminate your carbon footprint by any stretch but every last bit helps both environmentally and in monetary terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teach them to be frugal individuals.
Reduce what you buy, re-use what you have and recycle any cans and bottles that you can.
REcycling your cans can make you a decent amount of change that you can save for later.
Bottles often have a few cents that can be recovered by recycling them.
Turn off your lights when you're not using them, replace incandescent bulbs for high efficiency bulbs to save money on your electric bill.
It won't eliminate your carbon footprint by any stretch but every last bit helps both environmentally and in monetary terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871207</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief.. (--- is he serious???)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256565000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two dogs to pull you around = 4 suv, your petty indulgence could have been transport for 16-24 people, and not just few miles, but over hundreds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two dogs to pull you around = 4 suv , your petty indulgence could have been transport for 16-24 people , and not just few miles , but over hundreds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two dogs to pull you around = 4 suv, your petty indulgence could have been transport for 16-24 people, and not just few miles, but over hundreds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869335</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1256496180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Now, if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them.</i>
<br> <br>
The food the pets eat (including the entire production cycle involving plant and animal ingredients, the transporation to your store, your transporting of it home, the packaging it's in, all of the overhead involved, and so on), the vet care they receive, the products you buy to make them clean, healthy, comfortable - all of those activities burn fuel. Lots of it. Unless your pet eats only stuff that you kill out in the back yard, your servicing of them is a huge resource burner.
<br> <br>
Of course, it's not as bad as the combined effects of Soccer, Kayaking, and Rock Climbing. If people would just stop doing those things, we'd avoid all sorts of carbon emissions. Oh, and going to bars to drink. Seriously. What a waste of resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them .
The food the pets eat ( including the entire production cycle involving plant and animal ingredients , the transporation to your store , your transporting of it home , the packaging it 's in , all of the overhead involved , and so on ) , the vet care they receive , the products you buy to make them clean , healthy , comfortable - all of those activities burn fuel .
Lots of it .
Unless your pet eats only stuff that you kill out in the back yard , your servicing of them is a huge resource burner .
Of course , it 's not as bad as the combined effects of Soccer , Kayaking , and Rock Climbing .
If people would just stop doing those things , we 'd avoid all sorts of carbon emissions .
Oh , and going to bars to drink .
Seriously. What a waste of resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them.
The food the pets eat (including the entire production cycle involving plant and animal ingredients, the transporation to your store, your transporting of it home, the packaging it's in, all of the overhead involved, and so on), the vet care they receive, the products you buy to make them clean, healthy, comfortable - all of those activities burn fuel.
Lots of it.
Unless your pet eats only stuff that you kill out in the back yard, your servicing of them is a huge resource burner.
Of course, it's not as bad as the combined effects of Soccer, Kayaking, and Rock Climbing.
If people would just stop doing those things, we'd avoid all sorts of carbon emissions.
Oh, and going to bars to drink.
Seriously. What a waste of resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869321</id>
	<title>Re:Calm down guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256496060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most ppl above me seem to be freaking out like hicks thinking the government is coming to take their guns. Its a joke guys. Its kind of interesting but they can't srsly suggest eating our pets.</p></div><p>It isn't a joke... but it is hilarious.  Hilarious in an outlandish, 'I drive my SUV three blocks to work everyday' kind of way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ppl above me seem to be freaking out like hicks thinking the government is coming to take their guns .
Its a joke guys .
Its kind of interesting but they ca n't srsly suggest eating our pets.It is n't a joke... but it is hilarious .
Hilarious in an outlandish , 'I drive my SUV three blocks to work everyday ' kind of way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most ppl above me seem to be freaking out like hicks thinking the government is coming to take their guns.
Its a joke guys.
Its kind of interesting but they can't srsly suggest eating our pets.It isn't a joke... but it is hilarious.
Hilarious in an outlandish, 'I drive my SUV three blocks to work everyday' kind of way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872071</id>
	<title>Swift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next they'll be telling the Irish to eat their children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next they 'll be telling the Irish to eat their children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next they'll be telling the Irish to eat their children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872933</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>nsteinme</author>
	<datestamp>1256574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least you are honest about it.</p><p>I don't understand why people, particularly here in the U.S., are so callous about the unnecessary killing of animals for food. Why would any other life form be worth any less than a human? Killing living things is murder, simple as that. How would you like it if some other superior species came along and raised you just to eat you? I guess it is just one more of those areas like poverty that people are oblivious to because they are fortunate to be far removed from it (e.g. slaughterhouses).</p><p>Obligatory Simpsons quote:<br>&ldquo;I&rsquo;m a level 5 vegan-I don&rsquo;t eat anything that casts a shadow.&rdquo;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least you are honest about it.I do n't understand why people , particularly here in the U.S. , are so callous about the unnecessary killing of animals for food .
Why would any other life form be worth any less than a human ?
Killing living things is murder , simple as that .
How would you like it if some other superior species came along and raised you just to eat you ?
I guess it is just one more of those areas like poverty that people are oblivious to because they are fortunate to be far removed from it ( e.g .
slaughterhouses ) .Obligatory Simpsons quote :    I    m a level 5 vegan-I don    t eat anything that casts a shadow.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least you are honest about it.I don't understand why people, particularly here in the U.S., are so callous about the unnecessary killing of animals for food.
Why would any other life form be worth any less than a human?
Killing living things is murder, simple as that.
How would you like it if some other superior species came along and raised you just to eat you?
I guess it is just one more of those areas like poverty that people are oblivious to because they are fortunate to be far removed from it (e.g.
slaughterhouses).Obligatory Simpsons quote:“I’m a level 5 vegan-I don’t eat anything that casts a shadow.”
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869647</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Vovk</author>
	<datestamp>1256500200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ranting man makes a good point.

People suck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ranting man makes a good point .
People suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ranting man makes a good point.
People suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869359</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256496480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get why this is such a difficult concept. Imagine a tank of water that is slowly leaking and getting refilled at the same rate. Now increase the refill rate slightly - and presto - the tank will eventually overflow even though the increased refill rate is "inconsequentially" larger to the normal rate. The CO2 ecosystem works in a similar way. If this has not blown your mind you should read up on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear\_dynamics" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear\_dynamics</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex\_systems" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex\_systems</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get why this is such a difficult concept .
Imagine a tank of water that is slowly leaking and getting refilled at the same rate .
Now increase the refill rate slightly - and presto - the tank will eventually overflow even though the increased refill rate is " inconsequentially " larger to the normal rate .
The CO2 ecosystem works in a similar way .
If this has not blown your mind you should read up on http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear \ _dynamics [ wikipedia.org ] and http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex \ _systems [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get why this is such a difficult concept.
Imagine a tank of water that is slowly leaking and getting refilled at the same rate.
Now increase the refill rate slightly - and presto - the tank will eventually overflow even though the increased refill rate is "inconsequentially" larger to the normal rate.
The CO2 ecosystem works in a similar way.
If this has not blown your mind you should read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear\_dynamics [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex\_systems [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874425</id>
	<title>The reverse must also be true</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1256581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Whew!  I was trying to figure out how I was going to fit my dog in a smart car.  But now that I know my truck has less carbon footprint than my dog, I guess I'll keep it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whew !
I was trying to figure out how I was going to fit my dog in a smart car .
But now that I know my truck has less carbon footprint than my dog , I guess I 'll keep it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Whew!
I was trying to figure out how I was going to fit my dog in a smart car.
But now that I know my truck has less carbon footprint than my dog, I guess I'll keep it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869795</id>
	<title>Why stop at the pets? Let's euthanize ourselves</title>
	<author>guacamole</author>
	<datestamp>1256588340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can do more to save the planet.</p><p>Stop taking vacation trips to save the planet.<br>Stop watching movies, listening music, etc.<br>Walk or bike 2-4 hours (one way) to work to save the planet.<br>Eat as little possible and stop exercising to conserve the energy.<br>Euthanize all patients who can't pay off the medical bill.</p><p>In fact, let's just euthanize ourselves to save the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can do more to save the planet.Stop taking vacation trips to save the planet.Stop watching movies , listening music , etc.Walk or bike 2-4 hours ( one way ) to work to save the planet.Eat as little possible and stop exercising to conserve the energy.Euthanize all patients who ca n't pay off the medical bill.In fact , let 's just euthanize ourselves to save the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can do more to save the planet.Stop taking vacation trips to save the planet.Stop watching movies, listening music, etc.Walk or bike 2-4 hours (one way) to work to save the planet.Eat as little possible and stop exercising to conserve the energy.Euthanize all patients who can't pay off the medical bill.In fact, let's just euthanize ourselves to save the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870413</id>
	<title>The Real Point of the Book</title>
	<author>BarlowBrad</author>
	<datestamp>1256553900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it possible that the real point of the book is not to really suggest that we eat our pets, but rather to raise awareness and get people talking about the environment? If so, perhaps they have succeeded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it possible that the real point of the book is not to really suggest that we eat our pets , but rather to raise awareness and get people talking about the environment ?
If so , perhaps they have succeeded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it possible that the real point of the book is not to really suggest that we eat our pets, but rather to raise awareness and get people talking about the environment?
If so, perhaps they have succeeded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872115</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right now we are treated as holocaust deniers if we dare question if CO2 is really what we should focus on.</p></div><p>Evolution-deniers is a more apt comparison.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Is the microscopic amount of CO2 release actually created by humans compared to the Oceans, Volcanoes, and Bacteria really significant enough to warm the globe?</p></div><p>It's not microscopic at all, and yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now we are treated as holocaust deniers if we dare question if CO2 is really what we should focus on.Evolution-deniers is a more apt comparison.Is the microscopic amount of CO2 release actually created by humans compared to the Oceans , Volcanoes , and Bacteria really significant enough to warm the globe ? It 's not microscopic at all , and yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now we are treated as holocaust deniers if we dare question if CO2 is really what we should focus on.Evolution-deniers is a more apt comparison.Is the microscopic amount of CO2 release actually created by humans compared to the Oceans, Volcanoes, and Bacteria really significant enough to warm the globe?It's not microscopic at all, and yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871551</id>
	<title>Re:Another suggestion</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256567280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My suggestion is they can fuck off. I care more about my dogs (and cats, cockatiel, and tank of fish) than I do the rest of humanity. And no, this isn't sarcasm.</p></div><p>No, of course it isn't. You're just a sociopath who was probably abused (emotionally or physically) as a child, and never learned to associate with other humans due to fear. Of course, this is a good description for much of the world's population, and it explains why we are so poorly off as a species, around the world, and why we need to have dogs and/or cats for companionship: because so many of us cannot relate to humans. You might possibly term it as "don't see it as worth while" but that is, of course, the very same thing.</p><p>It's obvious that most of us don't care about other humans. Just take a look around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion is they can fuck off .
I care more about my dogs ( and cats , cockatiel , and tank of fish ) than I do the rest of humanity .
And no , this is n't sarcasm.No , of course it is n't .
You 're just a sociopath who was probably abused ( emotionally or physically ) as a child , and never learned to associate with other humans due to fear .
Of course , this is a good description for much of the world 's population , and it explains why we are so poorly off as a species , around the world , and why we need to have dogs and/or cats for companionship : because so many of us can not relate to humans .
You might possibly term it as " do n't see it as worth while " but that is , of course , the very same thing.It 's obvious that most of us do n't care about other humans .
Just take a look around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion is they can fuck off.
I care more about my dogs (and cats, cockatiel, and tank of fish) than I do the rest of humanity.
And no, this isn't sarcasm.No, of course it isn't.
You're just a sociopath who was probably abused (emotionally or physically) as a child, and never learned to associate with other humans due to fear.
Of course, this is a good description for much of the world's population, and it explains why we are so poorly off as a species, around the world, and why we need to have dogs and/or cats for companionship: because so many of us cannot relate to humans.
You might possibly term it as "don't see it as worth while" but that is, of course, the very same thing.It's obvious that most of us don't care about other humans.
Just take a look around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869951</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1256547780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Isn't most of the food we give to dogs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc. the remains of stuff that we produce but don't eat? Chicken necks,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc.</i></p><p>Pet food is made from animal by-products (some of which could be charitably described as meat), but certainly not from chicken necks.  Ask a chef or anyone that cooks and they'll tell you chicken necks and those parts of the animal that most people don't associate with food or otherwise serve up on their dinner plates are both valuable and expensive (well, cheaper than meat, but hardly cheap).</p><p>Next time you find a recipe that calls for, say, chicken stock, make a trip to your local butcher to get a deal on the cheap bits used for stock.  No local butcher?  Try the grocery store.  You might find chicken necks or even wings, but everything else (the head, legs, feet, giblets, heart, and ribs have already been sold off to someone else before the store gets their shipment.</p><p>The same applies to a "whole" chicken.  Unless, of course, you're fortunate to live near a Chinatown where "whole" means just that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't most of the food we give to dogs .etc .
the remains of stuff that we produce but do n't eat ?
Chicken necks , .etc.Pet food is made from animal by-products ( some of which could be charitably described as meat ) , but certainly not from chicken necks .
Ask a chef or anyone that cooks and they 'll tell you chicken necks and those parts of the animal that most people do n't associate with food or otherwise serve up on their dinner plates are both valuable and expensive ( well , cheaper than meat , but hardly cheap ) .Next time you find a recipe that calls for , say , chicken stock , make a trip to your local butcher to get a deal on the cheap bits used for stock .
No local butcher ?
Try the grocery store .
You might find chicken necks or even wings , but everything else ( the head , legs , feet , giblets , heart , and ribs have already been sold off to someone else before the store gets their shipment.The same applies to a " whole " chicken .
Unless , of course , you 're fortunate to live near a Chinatown where " whole " means just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't most of the food we give to dogs .etc.
the remains of stuff that we produce but don't eat?
Chicken necks, .etc.Pet food is made from animal by-products (some of which could be charitably described as meat), but certainly not from chicken necks.
Ask a chef or anyone that cooks and they'll tell you chicken necks and those parts of the animal that most people don't associate with food or otherwise serve up on their dinner plates are both valuable and expensive (well, cheaper than meat, but hardly cheap).Next time you find a recipe that calls for, say, chicken stock, make a trip to your local butcher to get a deal on the cheap bits used for stock.
No local butcher?
Try the grocery store.
You might find chicken necks or even wings, but everything else (the head, legs, feet, giblets, heart, and ribs have already been sold off to someone else before the store gets their shipment.The same applies to a "whole" chicken.
Unless, of course, you're fortunate to live near a Chinatown where "whole" means just that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874431</id>
	<title>probably fake science</title>
	<author>barry\_allen</author>
	<datestamp>1256581620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't understand how owning a SUV is the same as owning a dog.
</p><p>
First of all, a SUV is machine.
The dog is an animal.
</p><p>
I could love a machine but it won't love me back. Machines don't have emotions.
The dog will always show emotion when i show affection.
</p><p>
Instead of eating our dogs. we should be using our SUV's for parts for inventions.
</p><p>
This article is probably fake science that the Extreme Environmentalist movement has created. Global warning, dying polar bears and now this. (Reminder: Nazi Germany has been know for fake science)
</p><p>
Want to really save the planet?... Plant trees and other plants to absorb carbon-foot prints.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how owning a SUV is the same as owning a dog .
First of all , a SUV is machine .
The dog is an animal .
I could love a machine but it wo n't love me back .
Machines do n't have emotions .
The dog will always show emotion when i show affection .
Instead of eating our dogs .
we should be using our SUV 's for parts for inventions .
This article is probably fake science that the Extreme Environmentalist movement has created .
Global warning , dying polar bears and now this .
( Reminder : Nazi Germany has been know for fake science ) Want to really save the planet ? .. .
Plant trees and other plants to absorb carbon-foot prints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't understand how owning a SUV is the same as owning a dog.
First of all, a SUV is machine.
The dog is an animal.
I could love a machine but it won't love me back.
Machines don't have emotions.
The dog will always show emotion when i show affection.
Instead of eating our dogs.
we should be using our SUV's for parts for inventions.
This article is probably fake science that the Extreme Environmentalist movement has created.
Global warning, dying polar bears and now this.
(Reminder: Nazi Germany has been know for fake science)

Want to really save the planet?...
Plant trees and other plants to absorb carbon-foot prints.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29876019</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256589000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> On CFLs. You have this one right. It's a ery obvious case of greenwash.</p></div><p>I switched entirely to CFLs about ten years ago now.  I've replaced about half of them over that time, although they get dimmer over time so I tend to shuffle them around after a few years so the dimmer ones go in things like my bedside lamp and the brighter ones light rooms.  Over this decade, I've saved considerably more than the cost of the bulbs in electricity costs and, given the rate I was replacing incandescents before then, probably saved a lot in terms of bulb costs too.  </p><p>
I'm not sure about the 'greenwash' label; I did it just to save money, not for environmental reasons.  The fact that I've used less electricity and not needed to have a hundred or so bulbs made and shipped to me in that time is just a bonus.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Today I bought a 'biodegradeable' bag made from corn starch or some such thing for 15c.</p></div><p>That's crazy.  On this side of the pond, supermarkets all sell sturdy fabric bags for about &pound;1-2, depending on where you get them.  Each time you use it, they refund 1p for each of your own bags you use.  If you shop every week, it takes 2-4 years to break even, but during that time you have a much more sturdy bag and don't have to worry about disposing of plastic bags.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On CFLs .
You have this one right .
It 's a ery obvious case of greenwash.I switched entirely to CFLs about ten years ago now .
I 've replaced about half of them over that time , although they get dimmer over time so I tend to shuffle them around after a few years so the dimmer ones go in things like my bedside lamp and the brighter ones light rooms .
Over this decade , I 've saved considerably more than the cost of the bulbs in electricity costs and , given the rate I was replacing incandescents before then , probably saved a lot in terms of bulb costs too .
I 'm not sure about the 'greenwash ' label ; I did it just to save money , not for environmental reasons .
The fact that I 've used less electricity and not needed to have a hundred or so bulbs made and shipped to me in that time is just a bonus .
Today I bought a 'biodegradeable ' bag made from corn starch or some such thing for 15c.That 's crazy .
On this side of the pond , supermarkets all sell sturdy fabric bags for about   1-2 , depending on where you get them .
Each time you use it , they refund 1p for each of your own bags you use .
If you shop every week , it takes 2-4 years to break even , but during that time you have a much more sturdy bag and do n't have to worry about disposing of plastic bags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> On CFLs.
You have this one right.
It's a ery obvious case of greenwash.I switched entirely to CFLs about ten years ago now.
I've replaced about half of them over that time, although they get dimmer over time so I tend to shuffle them around after a few years so the dimmer ones go in things like my bedside lamp and the brighter ones light rooms.
Over this decade, I've saved considerably more than the cost of the bulbs in electricity costs and, given the rate I was replacing incandescents before then, probably saved a lot in terms of bulb costs too.
I'm not sure about the 'greenwash' label; I did it just to save money, not for environmental reasons.
The fact that I've used less electricity and not needed to have a hundred or so bulbs made and shipped to me in that time is just a bonus.
Today I bought a 'biodegradeable' bag made from corn starch or some such thing for 15c.That's crazy.
On this side of the pond, supermarkets all sell sturdy fabric bags for about £1-2, depending on where you get them.
Each time you use it, they refund 1p for each of your own bags you use.
If you shop every week, it takes 2-4 years to break even, but during that time you have a much more sturdy bag and don't have to worry about disposing of plastic bags.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878475</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1256556600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly this, I could rant for days about what you said but you covered it all basically.<br>I think this movie quote genuinely sums up my feelings about this.</p><p>I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure.</p><p>Long story short, nope - not having kids, no way in hell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly this , I could rant for days about what you said but you covered it all basically.I think this movie quote genuinely sums up my feelings about this.I 'd like to share a revelation that I 've had during my time here .
It came to me when I tried to classify your species , and I realised that humans are not actually mammals .
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment ; but you humans do not .
Instead you multiply , and multiply , until every resource is consumed .
The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area .
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus .
Human beings are a disease , a cancer on this planet , you are a plague , and we... are the cure.Long story short , nope - not having kids , no way in hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly this, I could rant for days about what you said but you covered it all basically.I think this movie quote genuinely sums up my feelings about this.I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here.
It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not.
Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed.
The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure.Long story short, nope - not having kids, no way in hell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871897</id>
	<title>Eat your mother</title>
	<author>bhagwad</author>
	<datestamp>1256569320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's use the same logic for people to eat their parents and children too! I mean wtf - we're trying to clean the planet for the sake of those who live on it - not kill those who live on it so that we can drive more SUVs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's use the same logic for people to eat their parents and children too !
I mean wtf - we 're trying to clean the planet for the sake of those who live on it - not kill those who live on it so that we can drive more SUVs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's use the same logic for people to eat their parents and children too!
I mean wtf - we're trying to clean the planet for the sake of those who live on it - not kill those who live on it so that we can drive more SUVs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874389</id>
	<title>Yea yea. and what about the benefits ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1256581440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>automotive vehicles use a lot of resources, but noone comes up saying  we should stop using them. because there are quite important benefits.</p><p>it kinda felt that this book is taking the pets as something of a vanity, with no immediate and important benefits. a very <strong>stupid</strong> point of view that is.</p><p>it is repeatedly proven that keeping pets alleviates a lot of stress accumulation in people, which, if not mitigated, could seek other ways to get rid of, or should lead to disorders in people's personality. nothing anormal here, modern times are stressful indeed.</p><p>but what happens when you take pets out of the equation ? imagine some percentage of the population becoming more stressed, erratic, disturbed and annoying. imagine these people interacting with the others on the road, at work, in the grocery store, school and in the house. wouldnt that lead to more problematic behaviour due to increased level of stress in general populace ? entry level psychopaths around every 4-5th corner you turn on the road.</p><p>no sir i dont like the sound of it. i dont like such visionless, knee-jerk approaches to environmentalism either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>automotive vehicles use a lot of resources , but noone comes up saying we should stop using them .
because there are quite important benefits.it kinda felt that this book is taking the pets as something of a vanity , with no immediate and important benefits .
a very stupid point of view that is.it is repeatedly proven that keeping pets alleviates a lot of stress accumulation in people , which , if not mitigated , could seek other ways to get rid of , or should lead to disorders in people 's personality .
nothing anormal here , modern times are stressful indeed.but what happens when you take pets out of the equation ?
imagine some percentage of the population becoming more stressed , erratic , disturbed and annoying .
imagine these people interacting with the others on the road , at work , in the grocery store , school and in the house .
wouldnt that lead to more problematic behaviour due to increased level of stress in general populace ?
entry level psychopaths around every 4-5th corner you turn on the road.no sir i dont like the sound of it .
i dont like such visionless , knee-jerk approaches to environmentalism either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>automotive vehicles use a lot of resources, but noone comes up saying  we should stop using them.
because there are quite important benefits.it kinda felt that this book is taking the pets as something of a vanity, with no immediate and important benefits.
a very stupid point of view that is.it is repeatedly proven that keeping pets alleviates a lot of stress accumulation in people, which, if not mitigated, could seek other ways to get rid of, or should lead to disorders in people's personality.
nothing anormal here, modern times are stressful indeed.but what happens when you take pets out of the equation ?
imagine some percentage of the population becoming more stressed, erratic, disturbed and annoying.
imagine these people interacting with the others on the road, at work, in the grocery store, school and in the house.
wouldnt that lead to more problematic behaviour due to increased level of stress in general populace ?
entry level psychopaths around every 4-5th corner you turn on the road.no sir i dont like the sound of it.
i dont like such visionless, knee-jerk approaches to environmentalism either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869975</id>
	<title>Mod Parent Up!</title>
	<author>HRbnjR</author>
	<datestamp>1256548020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, everyone quit having babies already!!  We need to shrink the population, consolidate people around fewer urban centres with mass transit, reverse the sprawl, dig up most the roads, and let a few continents just totally grow over with rain forests again, where we can all just go to visit on vacation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , everyone quit having babies already ! !
We need to shrink the population , consolidate people around fewer urban centres with mass transit , reverse the sprawl , dig up most the roads , and let a few continents just totally grow over with rain forests again , where we can all just go to visit on vacation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, everyone quit having babies already!!
We need to shrink the population, consolidate people around fewer urban centres with mass transit, reverse the sprawl, dig up most the roads, and let a few continents just totally grow over with rain forests again, where we can all just go to visit on vacation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869563</id>
	<title>Didn't the Mongols do this?</title>
	<author>pspahn</author>
	<datestamp>1256498880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've heard before that one of the reasons the Mongols were so successful was that they not only used packs of dogs during their raids, but would then eat them later. They killed the proverbial birds with this tactic, using them as self replenishing ammo that was edible.
<br> <br>
Anyone else heard of this? Quick googling proves inconclusive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard before that one of the reasons the Mongols were so successful was that they not only used packs of dogs during their raids , but would then eat them later .
They killed the proverbial birds with this tactic , using them as self replenishing ammo that was edible .
Anyone else heard of this ?
Quick googling proves inconclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard before that one of the reasons the Mongols were so successful was that they not only used packs of dogs during their raids, but would then eat them later.
They killed the proverbial birds with this tactic, using them as self replenishing ammo that was edible.
Anyone else heard of this?
Quick googling proves inconclusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief..</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1256548380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>they can make a big splash by regulating pet ownership in the name of the "environment."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
As the owner of two dogs, sign me up. I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane.  Additionally, I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.  And a program for harvesting this valuable resource - maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideas?
</p><p>
I also want another credit for the carbon offset from being able to turn the heat down at night - because happiness <b>is</b> a warm puppy.  Dogs are just as good as an electric blanket.  Actually, they're better - they continue to work during power failures.
</p><p>
Also, I should get an additional carbon credit for every kilometer I do with the dogs dragging me around on either roller blades (summer) or a sled (winter).  And both investment credits and a subsidy for the purchase of a dog-drawn cart.
</p><p>
And for the bonus round, you can always grind up those professors who wrote this piece of trash as a quick way to make a buck; my wolf probably isn't too fussy about who he eats - he chews EVERYTHING, and I'm sure their carbon footprint is larger than his.  And, since they're already producing shit, why not cut out the middle man<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they can make a big splash by regulating pet ownership in the name of the " environment .
" As the owner of two dogs , sign me up .
I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane .
Additionally , I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer .
And a program for harvesting this valuable resource - maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideas ?
I also want another credit for the carbon offset from being able to turn the heat down at night - because happiness is a warm puppy .
Dogs are just as good as an electric blanket .
Actually , they 're better - they continue to work during power failures .
Also , I should get an additional carbon credit for every kilometer I do with the dogs dragging me around on either roller blades ( summer ) or a sled ( winter ) .
And both investment credits and a subsidy for the purchase of a dog-drawn cart .
And for the bonus round , you can always grind up those professors who wrote this piece of trash as a quick way to make a buck ; my wolf probably is n't too fussy about who he eats - he chews EVERYTHING , and I 'm sure their carbon footprint is larger than his .
And , since they 're already producing shit , why not cut out the middle man .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they can make a big splash by regulating pet ownership in the name of the "environment.
"

As the owner of two dogs, sign me up.
I demand environmental offset credits for the offal that my dogs prevent from going directly into landfills and being converted into methane.
Additionally, I want additional credits for the conversion of said otherwise-useless offal and meat byproducts into environmentally useful high-grade fertilizer.
And a program for harvesting this valuable resource - maybe funded by a tax on stupid university professors dumb ideas?
I also want another credit for the carbon offset from being able to turn the heat down at night - because happiness is a warm puppy.
Dogs are just as good as an electric blanket.
Actually, they're better - they continue to work during power failures.
Also, I should get an additional carbon credit for every kilometer I do with the dogs dragging me around on either roller blades (summer) or a sled (winter).
And both investment credits and a subsidy for the purchase of a dog-drawn cart.
And for the bonus round, you can always grind up those professors who wrote this piece of trash as a quick way to make a buck; my wolf probably isn't too fussy about who he eats - he chews EVERYTHING, and I'm sure their carbon footprint is larger than his.
And, since they're already producing shit, why not cut out the middle man ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869821</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256588820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shit like this wouldn't fly with a sane rationed well educated public:</p><p>1) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology "for the environment" (no it's not just because there's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price, honest it's not). Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.</p></div><p>When you add in the cost of electricity, incandescent lighting is, in most cases, far more expensive than CFL lighting. Consumers don't seem to be able to take this in and make rational decisions about it. At 10c per KWH a 100W bulb that lasts 2000h will cost $20 over its lifetime in electricity. A 20W CFL which has roughly the same light output will cost $4 in electricity over the same time and should last a lot longer. Actual lifetimes do vary and do make a difference to the calculation, but in almost all cases CFLs come out a lot cheaper. The trouble is that consumers see a $1 pricetag of an incandescent light compared to a $5 pricetag of a CFL so the incandescent looks cheaper.</p><p>I don't think banning incandescent bulbs is the optimal solution, but if the public was fully informed, sane and rational nobody would be buying incandecents and rules to ban them wouldn't be needed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit like this would n't fly with a sane rationed well educated public : 1 ) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology " for the environment " ( no it 's not just because there 's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price , honest it 's not ) .
Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.When you add in the cost of electricity , incandescent lighting is , in most cases , far more expensive than CFL lighting .
Consumers do n't seem to be able to take this in and make rational decisions about it .
At 10c per KWH a 100W bulb that lasts 2000h will cost $ 20 over its lifetime in electricity .
A 20W CFL which has roughly the same light output will cost $ 4 in electricity over the same time and should last a lot longer .
Actual lifetimes do vary and do make a difference to the calculation , but in almost all cases CFLs come out a lot cheaper .
The trouble is that consumers see a $ 1 pricetag of an incandescent light compared to a $ 5 pricetag of a CFL so the incandescent looks cheaper.I do n't think banning incandescent bulbs is the optimal solution , but if the public was fully informed , sane and rational nobody would be buying incandecents and rules to ban them would n't be needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit like this wouldn't fly with a sane rationed well educated public:1) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology "for the environment" (no it's not just because there's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price, honest it's not).
Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.When you add in the cost of electricity, incandescent lighting is, in most cases, far more expensive than CFL lighting.
Consumers don't seem to be able to take this in and make rational decisions about it.
At 10c per KWH a 100W bulb that lasts 2000h will cost $20 over its lifetime in electricity.
A 20W CFL which has roughly the same light output will cost $4 in electricity over the same time and should last a lot longer.
Actual lifetimes do vary and do make a difference to the calculation, but in almost all cases CFLs come out a lot cheaper.
The trouble is that consumers see a $1 pricetag of an incandescent light compared to a $5 pricetag of a CFL so the incandescent looks cheaper.I don't think banning incandescent bulbs is the optimal solution, but if the public was fully informed, sane and rational nobody would be buying incandecents and rules to ban them wouldn't be needed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870481</id>
	<title>Re:Their "Pollution"</title>
	<author>kayoshiii</author>
	<datestamp>1256554680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The earth hasn't cooled over the last decade it has stayed fairly level in temperature. The oceans however have risen in temperature. The distribution however is not even  however a disproportionate amount of warming is happening in the artic area. I hear assertions like this being made all the time but when you look closely at the debate from both sides it just doesn't hold water.<br>where exactly did these mathematicians show the "hockey graph" to be bogus?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The earth has n't cooled over the last decade it has stayed fairly level in temperature .
The oceans however have risen in temperature .
The distribution however is not even however a disproportionate amount of warming is happening in the artic area .
I hear assertions like this being made all the time but when you look closely at the debate from both sides it just does n't hold water.where exactly did these mathematicians show the " hockey graph " to be bogus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The earth hasn't cooled over the last decade it has stayed fairly level in temperature.
The oceans however have risen in temperature.
The distribution however is not even  however a disproportionate amount of warming is happening in the artic area.
I hear assertions like this being made all the time but when you look closely at the debate from both sides it just doesn't hold water.where exactly did these mathematicians show the "hockey graph" to be bogus?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871393</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Picard\_1701</author>
	<datestamp>1256566380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, buddy, in general I agree with you. It's mostly a cash grab spun really well.

But.

The water thing is real. We are messing with the fresh water cycle in a way that has, historically, ended civilizations.

Overview:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in\_depth/world/2000/world\_water\_crisis/default.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in\_depth/world/2000/world\_water\_crisis/default.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]

Most shocking to me are the Aral Sea and Mexico City. Aral Sea because it already happened, and Mexico City because if it destabilizes, well, North America gets a hell of a lot more interesting.

Aral Sea
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea</a> [wikipedia.org]

Mexico City
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125270169029204249.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125270169029204249.html</a> [wsj.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , buddy , in general I agree with you .
It 's mostly a cash grab spun really well .
But . The water thing is real .
We are messing with the fresh water cycle in a way that has , historically , ended civilizations .
Overview : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in \ _depth/world/2000/world \ _water \ _crisis/default.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] Most shocking to me are the Aral Sea and Mexico City .
Aral Sea because it already happened , and Mexico City because if it destabilizes , well , North America gets a hell of a lot more interesting .
Aral Sea http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral \ _Sea [ wikipedia.org ] Mexico City http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB125270169029204249.html [ wsj.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, buddy, in general I agree with you.
It's mostly a cash grab spun really well.
But.

The water thing is real.
We are messing with the fresh water cycle in a way that has, historically, ended civilizations.
Overview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in\_depth/world/2000/world\_water\_crisis/default.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Most shocking to me are the Aral Sea and Mexico City.
Aral Sea because it already happened, and Mexico City because if it destabilizes, well, North America gets a hell of a lot more interesting.
Aral Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea [wikipedia.org]

Mexico City
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125270169029204249.html [wsj.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869929</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentalism means losing your mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256590380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The myth that it is the population which is causing all the problems is an old one.</p><p>The problem is not the population - but the fact that people are very wasteful.</p><p>Example: Do you really need a couple of TVs in your house? Three cars?  One way to reduce pollution is for us curtail our purchases - we must purchase less of EVERYTHING. Also, we should try and repair broken things before we head out to buy a replacement.</p><p>Also, You are right in that this CFL madness going on is a scam. The bulbs are far more expensive and also much more difficult to recycle because of the mercury content.</p><p>Also, what about the latest craze for hybrids and electrics? All electrics and any sort of high-end energy efficient solar panel requires rare earth minerals and these are very, very expensive in terms of energy to mine. But yet, we consider these as good ways of saving energy. The better way to reduce automobile emissions would have been to allow individuals to purchase far more efficient engine replacements for their cars or reconditioning the existing engines and cars without requiring them to completely junk the car to purchase a new one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The myth that it is the population which is causing all the problems is an old one.The problem is not the population - but the fact that people are very wasteful.Example : Do you really need a couple of TVs in your house ?
Three cars ?
One way to reduce pollution is for us curtail our purchases - we must purchase less of EVERYTHING .
Also , we should try and repair broken things before we head out to buy a replacement.Also , You are right in that this CFL madness going on is a scam .
The bulbs are far more expensive and also much more difficult to recycle because of the mercury content.Also , what about the latest craze for hybrids and electrics ?
All electrics and any sort of high-end energy efficient solar panel requires rare earth minerals and these are very , very expensive in terms of energy to mine .
But yet , we consider these as good ways of saving energy .
The better way to reduce automobile emissions would have been to allow individuals to purchase far more efficient engine replacements for their cars or reconditioning the existing engines and cars without requiring them to completely junk the car to purchase a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The myth that it is the population which is causing all the problems is an old one.The problem is not the population - but the fact that people are very wasteful.Example: Do you really need a couple of TVs in your house?
Three cars?
One way to reduce pollution is for us curtail our purchases - we must purchase less of EVERYTHING.
Also, we should try and repair broken things before we head out to buy a replacement.Also, You are right in that this CFL madness going on is a scam.
The bulbs are far more expensive and also much more difficult to recycle because of the mercury content.Also, what about the latest craze for hybrids and electrics?
All electrics and any sort of high-end energy efficient solar panel requires rare earth minerals and these are very, very expensive in terms of energy to mine.
But yet, we consider these as good ways of saving energy.
The better way to reduce automobile emissions would have been to allow individuals to purchase far more efficient engine replacements for their cars or reconditioning the existing engines and cars without requiring them to completely junk the car to purchase a new one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870909</id>
	<title>Re:10,000km per year?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256561760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoting statistics that are applicable in the US to dismiss a survey based in New Zealand seems somewhat "stretched" to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoting statistics that are applicable in the US to dismiss a survey based in New Zealand seems somewhat " stretched " to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoting statistics that are applicable in the US to dismiss a survey based in New Zealand seems somewhat "stretched" to me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873393</id>
	<title>New Scientist link</title>
	<author>eh2o</author>
	<datestamp>1256576460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article in New Scientist has considerably more information about the impact of pets beyond food:</p><p><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&amp;nsref=online-news" title="newscientist.com">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&amp;nsref=online-news</a> [newscientist.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article in New Scientist has considerably more information about the impact of pets beyond food : http : //www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html ? DCMP = OTC-rss&amp;nsref = online-news [ newscientist.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article in New Scientist has considerably more information about the impact of pets beyond food:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&amp;nsref=online-news [newscientist.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29879505</id>
	<title>Re:Can we finally start denying it again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256563740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do we know that the rate the tank leaks does not increase with the volume of water in the tank?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know that the rate the tank leaks does not increase with the volume of water in the tank ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know that the rate the tank leaks does not increase with the volume of water in the tank?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875289</id>
	<title>How about NO PETS and NO MEAT</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1256585520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Green house problem SOLVED. Future food shortages SOLVED.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Green house problem SOLVED .
Future food shortages SOLVED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Green house problem SOLVED.
Future food shortages SOLVED.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201</id>
	<title>OMG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256494740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.
</p><p>What to do...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant .
What to do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My offspring and their offspring probably have the eco-footprint of a coal-fired electric plant.
What to do...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869845</id>
	<title>Re:interesting responses</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256589180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think there's much to say. It's the same mentality that keeps pets from dying in many movies. As far as advocating cannibalism. That's just a natural extension of the thread of "sustainable" living seen here. If you're going to have edible pets for sustainability reasons, then it makes sense, from the same angle, to consider edible neighbors. Long pig is just another meat, after all. And we'd be amiss, if we didn't consider our edibility in this new sustainability paradigm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there 's much to say .
It 's the same mentality that keeps pets from dying in many movies .
As far as advocating cannibalism .
That 's just a natural extension of the thread of " sustainable " living seen here .
If you 're going to have edible pets for sustainability reasons , then it makes sense , from the same angle , to consider edible neighbors .
Long pig is just another meat , after all .
And we 'd be amiss , if we did n't consider our edibility in this new sustainability paradigm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think there's much to say.
It's the same mentality that keeps pets from dying in many movies.
As far as advocating cannibalism.
That's just a natural extension of the thread of "sustainable" living seen here.
If you're going to have edible pets for sustainability reasons, then it makes sense, from the same angle, to consider edible neighbors.
Long pig is just another meat, after all.
And we'd be amiss, if we didn't consider our edibility in this new sustainability paradigm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281</id>
	<title>Stupid comparisons</title>
	<author>Jeeeb</author>
	<datestamp>1256495640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:
<i>"In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido."</i> <br> <br>

Isn't most of the food we give to dogs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc. the remains of stuff that we produce but don't eat? Chicken necks,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc. Seems like a very shallow method of calculation. Also I do hope in their book they go into a lot more detail about where they got those statistics!<br> <br>

<i>hey compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha &ndash; less than half of the dog's.</i> <br> <br>

What a load of bullshit. We fuel SUVs using fossil fuels which adds to the carbon cycle, hence contributing to global warming. Now, if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " In a study published in New Scientist , they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year .
It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year .
This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido .
" Is n't most of the food we give to dogs .etc .
the remains of stuff that we produce but do n't eat ?
Chicken necks , .etc .
Seems like a very shallow method of calculation .
Also I do hope in their book they go into a lot more detail about where they got those statistics !
hey compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser , driven 10,000km a year , which uses 55.1 gigajoules ( the energy used to build and fuel it ) .
One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year , which means the vehicle 's eco-footprint is 0.41ha    less than half of the dog 's .
What a load of bullshit .
We fuel SUVs using fossil fuels which adds to the carbon cycle , hence contributing to global warming .
Now , if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:
"In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year.
It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year.
This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
"  

Isn't most of the food we give to dogs .etc.
the remains of stuff that we produce but don't eat?
Chicken necks, .etc.
Seems like a very shallow method of calculation.
Also I do hope in their book they go into a lot more detail about where they got those statistics!
hey compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it).
One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's.
What a load of bullshit.
We fuel SUVs using fossil fuels which adds to the carbon cycle, hence contributing to global warming.
Now, if we were powering our pets of fossil fuels as well then we could easily compare them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878175</id>
	<title>Re:OMG</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1256554740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists?</p></div><p>I know... hypothetical question.  I'll answer it anyway.  To say there are too many people, and too many being born implies that some are excess.  It's too easy to defeat that logical answer by asking you to define which group is excess.
</p><p>Also the only solution besides war, famine and plague involves the total cooperation of everyone at once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists ? I know... hypothetical question .
I 'll answer it anyway .
To say there are too many people , and too many being born implies that some are excess .
It 's too easy to defeat that logical answer by asking you to define which group is excess .
Also the only solution besides war , famine and plague involves the total cooperation of everyone at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, why is overpopulation rarely mentioned by environmentalists?I know... hypothetical question.
I'll answer it anyway.
To say there are too many people, and too many being born implies that some are excess.
It's too easy to defeat that logical answer by asking you to define which group is excess.
Also the only solution besides war, famine and plague involves the total cooperation of everyone at once.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29876019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29881543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29876965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29884325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29884127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29877201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29879505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29880879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29879215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_0321245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870181
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870001
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870373
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874361
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871207
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871499
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875915
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875609
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871301
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872229
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871131
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874285
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870263
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29881543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29884325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29877201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29875781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29884127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29876965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29879505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29880879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29879215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_0321245.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29874933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29871393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29876019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29869669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29878475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29873565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29870229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_0321245.29872431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
