<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_27_1731221</id>
	<title>French Branch of Scientology Is Convicted of Fraud</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256669040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The trial we <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/05/26/2111214/Church-of-Scientology-On-Trial-In-France">discussed this spring</a> has come to a verdict, and
reader lugannerd was one of several to note a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/europe/28france.html">milestone in the fight against the Church of Scientology</a>. <i>"The French branch of the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud and fined nearly $900,000 on Tuesday by a Paris court. But the judges did not ban the church entirely, as the prosecution had demanded, saying that a change in the law prevented such an action for fraud. The church said it would appeal. The verdict was among the most important in several years to involve the controversial group, which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in France. It is considered a sect here, and says it has some 45,000 adherents, out of some 12 million worldwide. It was the first time here that the church itself had been tried and convicted, as opposed to individual members."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trial we discussed this spring has come to a verdict , and reader lugannerd was one of several to note a milestone in the fight against the Church of Scientology .
" The French branch of the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud and fined nearly $ 900,000 on Tuesday by a Paris court .
But the judges did not ban the church entirely , as the prosecution had demanded , saying that a change in the law prevented such an action for fraud .
The church said it would appeal .
The verdict was among the most important in several years to involve the controversial group , which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in France .
It is considered a sect here , and says it has some 45,000 adherents , out of some 12 million worldwide .
It was the first time here that the church itself had been tried and convicted , as opposed to individual members .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trial we discussed this spring has come to a verdict, and
reader lugannerd was one of several to note a milestone in the fight against the Church of Scientology.
"The French branch of the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud and fined nearly $900,000 on Tuesday by a Paris court.
But the judges did not ban the church entirely, as the prosecution had demanded, saying that a change in the law prevented such an action for fraud.
The church said it would appeal.
The verdict was among the most important in several years to involve the controversial group, which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in France.
It is considered a sect here, and says it has some 45,000 adherents, out of some 12 million worldwide.
It was the first time here that the church itself had been tried and convicted, as opposed to individual members.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890597</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256643600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inquisition did not have authority on non christians. IE, inquisition courts could not judge jews. Of course, if they converted publicly but continued to practise judaism at home, then they were subject to inquisition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inquisition did not have authority on non christians .
IE , inquisition courts could not judge jews .
Of course , if they converted publicly but continued to practise judaism at home , then they were subject to inquisition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inquisition did not have authority on non christians.
IE, inquisition courts could not judge jews.
Of course, if they converted publicly but continued to practise judaism at home, then they were subject to inquisition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887423</id>
	<title>the one true church ..</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1256673960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course there is only the one true <a href="http://www.venganza.org/" title="venganza.org" rel="nofollow">Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster</a> [venganza.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there is only the one true Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster [ venganza.org ] . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there is only the one true Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster [venganza.org] ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29897517</id>
	<title>Isnt it amazing how</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in this time of recession and joblessness - the churches are still being built, expanding, have acreage galore and yet - do they not pay taxes?  Time to ask the churches to bail out the populous who have donated BILLIONS over and over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in this time of recession and joblessness - the churches are still being built , expanding , have acreage galore and yet - do they not pay taxes ?
Time to ask the churches to bail out the populous who have donated BILLIONS over and over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in this time of recession and joblessness - the churches are still being built, expanding, have acreage galore and yet - do they not pay taxes?
Time to ask the churches to bail out the populous who have donated BILLIONS over and over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888407</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>dosius</author>
	<datestamp>1256634900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about enough to get three people up to OT3 where they learn the Xenu story...</p><p>-uso.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about enough to get three people up to OT3 where they learn the Xenu story...-uso .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about enough to get three people up to OT3 where they learn the Xenu story...-uso.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888817</id>
	<title>Re:Convicted ? Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256636400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No the court didn't rule such a thing and even if it would have wanted to didn't have to power to do so. There is no such thing as a legal church in France. Religious and non-religious activities conducted by a group of people is defined legally as an association (loi 1901).</p><p>What happened is that several months ago, a law passed that was supposed to clean up French criminal laws regarding companies, associations and such. In this law, a company or association could not be dissolved anymore as a result of a trial.</p><p>So the Scientology could not be dissolved during this trial. The courts could however have forbid the Scientology from having any activity in France (while still not being dissolved as an organization).</p><p>But, note that in the meantime, the dissolution penalty was reinstated. So if/when the Scientology is convicted again, this time, the courts will have the right to dissolve it.</p><p>This conviction is as much a warning than a trap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No the court did n't rule such a thing and even if it would have wanted to did n't have to power to do so .
There is no such thing as a legal church in France .
Religious and non-religious activities conducted by a group of people is defined legally as an association ( loi 1901 ) .What happened is that several months ago , a law passed that was supposed to clean up French criminal laws regarding companies , associations and such .
In this law , a company or association could not be dissolved anymore as a result of a trial.So the Scientology could not be dissolved during this trial .
The courts could however have forbid the Scientology from having any activity in France ( while still not being dissolved as an organization ) .But , note that in the meantime , the dissolution penalty was reinstated .
So if/when the Scientology is convicted again , this time , the courts will have the right to dissolve it.This conviction is as much a warning than a trap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No the court didn't rule such a thing and even if it would have wanted to didn't have to power to do so.
There is no such thing as a legal church in France.
Religious and non-religious activities conducted by a group of people is defined legally as an association (loi 1901).What happened is that several months ago, a law passed that was supposed to clean up French criminal laws regarding companies, associations and such.
In this law, a company or association could not be dissolved anymore as a result of a trial.So the Scientology could not be dissolved during this trial.
The courts could however have forbid the Scientology from having any activity in France (while still not being dissolved as an organization).But, note that in the meantime, the dissolution penalty was reinstated.
So if/when the Scientology is convicted again, this time, the courts will have the right to dissolve it.This conviction is as much a warning than a trap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887383</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Translation Error</author>
	<datestamp>1256673780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this considered mainstream? <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/europe/28france.html?\_r=1" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/europe/28france.html?\_r=1</a> [nytimes.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this considered mainstream ?
http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/europe/28france.html ? \ _r = 1 [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this considered mainstream?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/europe/28france.html?\_r=1 [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888107</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1256676840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?</i></p><p><i>Fuck you. Go worship your stupid fucking alien/zombie magic savior. News flash: He's not coming back for you. Fucktards.</i></p><p>There's very little substantive difference between those two lines as far as being flamebait.  Do you really think "fuck" is the difference between being flamebait and not?  Or do you not understand the difference between a <i>flame</i> and flame<i>bait</i>?</p><p>You were modded appropriately.  Sorry if you really didn't understand you were posting flamebait, though it'd be better if you just understood that and accepted the inevitable mods without caring.  Either way whining about it is pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit , but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there , like Christianity or Islam ? Fuck you .
Go worship your stupid fucking alien/zombie magic savior .
News flash : He 's not coming back for you .
Fucktards.There 's very little substantive difference between those two lines as far as being flamebait .
Do you really think " fuck " is the difference between being flamebait and not ?
Or do you not understand the difference between a flame and flamebait ? You were modded appropriately .
Sorry if you really did n't understand you were posting flamebait , though it 'd be better if you just understood that and accepted the inevitable mods without caring .
Either way whining about it is pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?Fuck you.
Go worship your stupid fucking alien/zombie magic savior.
News flash: He's not coming back for you.
Fucktards.There's very little substantive difference between those two lines as far as being flamebait.
Do you really think "fuck" is the difference between being flamebait and not?
Or do you not understand the difference between a flame and flamebait?You were modded appropriately.
Sorry if you really didn't understand you were posting flamebait, though it'd be better if you just understood that and accepted the inevitable mods without caring.
Either way whining about it is pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</id>
	<title>Fine?</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1256672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well a 900k fine isn't going to be much. These guys have armies of members that fling money at that them. The best thing of this story is the bad press (though people say there is no such thing) given their army of lawyers I don't imagine this will ever hit main stream media, at least here in the states.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well a 900k fine is n't going to be much .
These guys have armies of members that fling money at that them .
The best thing of this story is the bad press ( though people say there is no such thing ) given their army of lawyers I do n't imagine this will ever hit main stream media , at least here in the states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well a 900k fine isn't going to be much.
These guys have armies of members that fling money at that them.
The best thing of this story is the bad press (though people say there is no such thing) given their army of lawyers I don't imagine this will ever hit main stream media, at least here in the states.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890747</id>
	<title>stop equating $cientology with other religions</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256644320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's like comparing volunteering to clean up the highway median of garbage, and being forced to clean it up, and your income from the job goes to your crew boss</p><p>yes, there is plenty of monotheistic religions you should skewer and condemn</p><p>but to not recognize that for all the crimes of judaism, christianity, islam, etc., that scientology outdoes those religions and adds a few more crimes, is to not understand the subject matter you are injecting yourself into</p><p>i dislike organized religion. but i dislike slavery even more. and that's what scientology is</p><p>you really should read up on how especially vicious this nasty cult is</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_snow\_white" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_snow\_white</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's like comparing volunteering to clean up the highway median of garbage , and being forced to clean it up , and your income from the job goes to your crew bossyes , there is plenty of monotheistic religions you should skewer and condemnbut to not recognize that for all the crimes of judaism , christianity , islam , etc. , that scientology outdoes those religions and adds a few more crimes , is to not understand the subject matter you are injecting yourself intoi dislike organized religion .
but i dislike slavery even more .
and that 's what scientology isyou really should read up on how especially vicious this nasty cult ishttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation \ _snow \ _white [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's like comparing volunteering to clean up the highway median of garbage, and being forced to clean it up, and your income from the job goes to your crew bossyes, there is plenty of monotheistic religions you should skewer and condemnbut to not recognize that for all the crimes of judaism, christianity, islam, etc., that scientology outdoes those religions and adds a few more crimes, is to not understand the subject matter you are injecting yourself intoi dislike organized religion.
but i dislike slavery even more.
and that's what scientology isyou really should read up on how especially vicious this nasty cult ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_snow\_white [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893495</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256668500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All religions suck, especially the fake ones.</p></div><p>You mean to suggest that any of them have a basis in reality?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All religions suck , especially the fake ones.You mean to suggest that any of them have a basis in reality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All religions suck, especially the fake ones.You mean to suggest that any of them have a basis in reality?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163</id>
	<title>Revoke The Tax-Free Status Of The Catholic Church</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Roman Catholic Church is one of the <a href="http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow"> world's largest real estate companies</a> [wordpress.com] and source of crazy statements by The Pope.</p><p>Yours In Petrograd,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Roman Catholic Church is one of the world 's largest real estate companies [ wordpress.com ] and source of crazy statements by The Pope.Yours In Petrograd,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Roman Catholic Church is one of the  world's largest real estate companies [wordpress.com] and source of crazy statements by The Pope.Yours In Petrograd,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887875</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to agree with you, but I'm not quite sure how you they were able to prove fraud.  If they made specific claims in regards to what the purification and vitamins would do you for, that's one thing.  But if it's just a bunch of marketing speak then how exactly was fraud proven?  If I claim to have a rock that keeps ghosts away, how can you disprove that?  There weren't enough details in the NY Times article, so maybe specific disprovable claims were made; if that's the case, I'm fine with that.  Otherwise, I think it's going down a slippery slope just to punish a few assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree with you , but I 'm not quite sure how you they were able to prove fraud .
If they made specific claims in regards to what the purification and vitamins would do you for , that 's one thing .
But if it 's just a bunch of marketing speak then how exactly was fraud proven ?
If I claim to have a rock that keeps ghosts away , how can you disprove that ?
There were n't enough details in the NY Times article , so maybe specific disprovable claims were made ; if that 's the case , I 'm fine with that .
Otherwise , I think it 's going down a slippery slope just to punish a few assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree with you, but I'm not quite sure how you they were able to prove fraud.
If they made specific claims in regards to what the purification and vitamins would do you for, that's one thing.
But if it's just a bunch of marketing speak then how exactly was fraud proven?
If I claim to have a rock that keeps ghosts away, how can you disprove that?
There weren't enough details in the NY Times article, so maybe specific disprovable claims were made; if that's the case, I'm fine with that.
Otherwise, I think it's going down a slippery slope just to punish a few assholes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29896143</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All religions suck, especially the fake ones.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>What, there's a difference? Or rather, is a given religion real just because nobody believes it's a fake?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All religions suck , especially the fake ones .
What , there 's a difference ?
Or rather , is a given religion real just because nobody believes it 's a fake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All religions suck, especially the fake ones.
What, there's a difference?
Or rather, is a given religion real just because nobody believes it's a fake?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890353</id>
	<title>Re:Revoke The Tax-Free Status Of The Catholic Chur</title>
	<author>BBTaeKwonDo</author>
	<datestamp>1256642580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The tax exemption was part of a Faustian bargain between church and state; the church was supposed to take care of social services for the poor, and in return tithes weren't taxed.</p></div></blockquote><p>

What school of revisionist history did you attend? When the First Amendment was written, there was no income tax, so the taxability of tithes was a non-issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The tax exemption was part of a Faustian bargain between church and state ; the church was supposed to take care of social services for the poor , and in return tithes were n't taxed .
What school of revisionist history did you attend ?
When the First Amendment was written , there was no income tax , so the taxability of tithes was a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tax exemption was part of a Faustian bargain between church and state; the church was supposed to take care of social services for the poor, and in return tithes weren't taxed.
What school of revisionist history did you attend?
When the First Amendment was written, there was no income tax, so the taxability of tithes was a non-issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887103</id>
	<title>foist poist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256672760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vive la France!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vive la France !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vive la France!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894989</id>
	<title>Providential change in French law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This change in French law was providential. The french government is now doing an enquiry to discover who introduced this change in an article of law. The problem is that this is very intricate as many redactors intervened during the writing process.</p><p>This is not new, though : in France, about 10 years ago, Scientology was sued in law for money extortion. Just a few days before the audiences started, the majority of the folders related to the case dissapeared, thus annihilating the charges for a fault in the legal procedure... Scientology went out scott-free from this trial too.</p><p>Scary, innit ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This change in French law was providential .
The french government is now doing an enquiry to discover who introduced this change in an article of law .
The problem is that this is very intricate as many redactors intervened during the writing process.This is not new , though : in France , about 10 years ago , Scientology was sued in law for money extortion .
Just a few days before the audiences started , the majority of the folders related to the case dissapeared , thus annihilating the charges for a fault in the legal procedure... Scientology went out scott-free from this trial too.Scary , innit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This change in French law was providential.
The french government is now doing an enquiry to discover who introduced this change in an article of law.
The problem is that this is very intricate as many redactors intervened during the writing process.This is not new, though : in France, about 10 years ago, Scientology was sued in law for money extortion.
Just a few days before the audiences started, the majority of the folders related to the case dissapeared, thus annihilating the charges for a fault in the legal procedure... Scientology went out scott-free from this trial too.Scary, innit ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888219</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1256634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The short version is that Christian salvation is free.  I can go to church, I can read the bible, I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination.  They're not <i>selling</i> salvation.  It might be worth tossing a few bucks their way (or to the mosque, or the buddhist temple) to keep the services available, but there's no requirement to pay up.</p><p>With Scientology, salvation is directly tied to how much money you put into it.  You <i>buy</i> access to higher levels.</p><p>Doctrinally, I don't think they're much different in crazy factor, but as far as the business practices go in terms of bilking believers, they're an outright fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The short version is that Christian salvation is free .
I can go to church , I can read the bible , I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination .
They 're not selling salvation .
It might be worth tossing a few bucks their way ( or to the mosque , or the buddhist temple ) to keep the services available , but there 's no requirement to pay up.With Scientology , salvation is directly tied to how much money you put into it .
You buy access to higher levels.Doctrinally , I do n't think they 're much different in crazy factor , but as far as the business practices go in terms of bilking believers , they 're an outright fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short version is that Christian salvation is free.
I can go to church, I can read the bible, I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination.
They're not selling salvation.
It might be worth tossing a few bucks their way (or to the mosque, or the buddhist temple) to keep the services available, but there's no requirement to pay up.With Scientology, salvation is directly tied to how much money you put into it.
You buy access to higher levels.Doctrinally, I don't think they're much different in crazy factor, but as far as the business practices go in terms of bilking believers, they're an outright fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888283</id>
	<title>Re:(AHEM) final irony</title>
	<author>mugnyte</author>
	<datestamp>1256634420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Actually, this is to be expected.  "doth protest too much" - even Billy Shakespeare knew that at the core of someone's over-the-top repulsion is infatuation.  Someone's self-punishment projected to anyone who they can influence is common.  It's also how they stay mentally engaged in their behavior.</p><p>
&nbsp; Psychology and Psychiatry were LRH's sworn enemies of Dianetics, but he was infatuated with them.</p><p>
&nbsp; I'm sure LRH wanted to explore the mental/brain sciences more in his lifetime, but probably got lazy seeing how well the self-help Dianetics program he made up did in the market.  It was everywhere for a while.  Then he merged in the Scientology sci-fi mythology and took it into secret-society mode, IIRC.</p><p>
&nbsp; If you look at the Narcon models, the huge amount of mineral supplements, steam baths, diet manipulation and outright wishing is a pseudo-science that tries to be all things NOT Psychiatry and yet still somewhat effective through chemical means.</p><p>
&nbsp; Of course, in the model of mental conditioning and behavioral therapy (yet still not with a traditional Psychology study of the mind) they exceed at the cult-like hypnosis of believing Truth only arises from their own.</p><p>
&nbsp; Overall, it's a self-limiting system, and only that only fights itself (info leaks, legal battles, peddling influence).</p><p>
&nbsp; Their overall OT X goals have been revealed to be the eventual departure from Earth on a big "Space Org" ship.</p><p>
&nbsp; I can only hope they hurry up.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Actually , this is to be expected .
" doth protest too much " - even Billy Shakespeare knew that at the core of someone 's over-the-top repulsion is infatuation .
Someone 's self-punishment projected to anyone who they can influence is common .
It 's also how they stay mentally engaged in their behavior .
  Psychology and Psychiatry were LRH 's sworn enemies of Dianetics , but he was infatuated with them .
  I 'm sure LRH wanted to explore the mental/brain sciences more in his lifetime , but probably got lazy seeing how well the self-help Dianetics program he made up did in the market .
It was everywhere for a while .
Then he merged in the Scientology sci-fi mythology and took it into secret-society mode , IIRC .
  If you look at the Narcon models , the huge amount of mineral supplements , steam baths , diet manipulation and outright wishing is a pseudo-science that tries to be all things NOT Psychiatry and yet still somewhat effective through chemical means .
  Of course , in the model of mental conditioning and behavioral therapy ( yet still not with a traditional Psychology study of the mind ) they exceed at the cult-like hypnosis of believing Truth only arises from their own .
  Overall , it 's a self-limiting system , and only that only fights itself ( info leaks , legal battles , peddling influence ) .
  Their overall OT X goals have been revealed to be the eventual departure from Earth on a big " Space Org " ship .
  I can only hope they hurry up .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Actually, this is to be expected.
"doth protest too much" - even Billy Shakespeare knew that at the core of someone's over-the-top repulsion is infatuation.
Someone's self-punishment projected to anyone who they can influence is common.
It's also how they stay mentally engaged in their behavior.
  Psychology and Psychiatry were LRH's sworn enemies of Dianetics, but he was infatuated with them.
  I'm sure LRH wanted to explore the mental/brain sciences more in his lifetime, but probably got lazy seeing how well the self-help Dianetics program he made up did in the market.
It was everywhere for a while.
Then he merged in the Scientology sci-fi mythology and took it into secret-society mode, IIRC.
  If you look at the Narcon models, the huge amount of mineral supplements, steam baths, diet manipulation and outright wishing is a pseudo-science that tries to be all things NOT Psychiatry and yet still somewhat effective through chemical means.
  Of course, in the model of mental conditioning and behavioral therapy (yet still not with a traditional Psychology study of the mind) they exceed at the cult-like hypnosis of believing Truth only arises from their own.
  Overall, it's a self-limiting system, and only that only fights itself (info leaks, legal battles, peddling influence).
  Their overall OT X goals have been revealed to be the eventual departure from Earth on a big "Space Org" ship.
  I can only hope they hurry up.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888247</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>s2theg</author>
	<datestamp>1256634240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Find near guaranteed source of money from questionable organization.<br>
2) Put said organization under political scrutiny that could lead to harsh penalties.<br>
3) ?<br>
4) Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Find near guaranteed source of money from questionable organization .
2 ) Put said organization under political scrutiny that could lead to harsh penalties .
3 ) ?
4 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Find near guaranteed source of money from questionable organization.
2) Put said organization under political scrutiny that could lead to harsh penalties.
3) ?
4) Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888091</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed, and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations. With the former comes extreme (and deadly) actions, with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.</p></div></blockquote><p>For every vague accusation you can make against Scientology, without naming any particular member, I can make a thousand against Christianity or any other "major" religion. For the simple reason that they have existed longer.</p><blockquote><div><p>Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over, but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money.</p></div></blockquote><p>And the Pope has an entire city to do the same.<br>What's your point?</p><p>My point is clear: A cult is a cult.</p><p>(Sorry for the double post, I screwed up my formatting..)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed , and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations .
With the former comes extreme ( and deadly ) actions , with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.For every vague accusation you can make against Scientology , without naming any particular member , I can make a thousand against Christianity or any other " major " religion .
For the simple reason that they have existed longer.Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over , but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money.And the Pope has an entire city to do the same.What 's your point ? My point is clear : A cult is a cult .
( Sorry for the double post , I screwed up my formatting.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed, and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations.
With the former comes extreme (and deadly) actions, with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.For every vague accusation you can make against Scientology, without naming any particular member, I can make a thousand against Christianity or any other "major" religion.
For the simple reason that they have existed longer.Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over, but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money.And the Pope has an entire city to do the same.What's your point?My point is clear: A cult is a cult.
(Sorry for the double post, I screwed up my formatting..)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889221</id>
	<title>Oh, no, you're not getting off that easy</title>
	<author>fyngyrz</author>
	<datestamp>1256638140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
He didn't say anything about why the wars were prosecuted; he pointed out that they were the vehicle for Christian atrocities, which is straight up truth. Certainly a culture has the right to defend itself against violence; but the manner in which that is done is still relevant.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't say anything about why the wars were prosecuted ; he pointed out that they were the vehicle for Christian atrocities , which is straight up truth .
Certainly a culture has the right to defend itself against violence ; but the manner in which that is done is still relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
He didn't say anything about why the wars were prosecuted; he pointed out that they were the vehicle for Christian atrocities, which is straight up truth.
Certainly a culture has the right to defend itself against violence; but the manner in which that is done is still relevant.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887913</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look at Mormons.  They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap.</p></div><p>Just for the record, while that may happen in some cases, Mormons are encouraged by their leaders to maintain positive relationships with family members that choose not to join or to leave the church.  The idea there is that if you actually care about people (not just fake it), then maybe you can make their lives better, regardless of their religious or personal choices.</p><p>Lumping all religions together as "laughable pile[s] of dog shit" does not reflect logic or reasoning.  If your conclusion that they are all wrong is logical or well reasoned, then please share your reasoning.  Smart people will listen to your arguments, though they may point out holes in them.  No reasonable person will be won over by being mocked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at Mormons .
They shun their own family if they do n't buy into their crap.Just for the record , while that may happen in some cases , Mormons are encouraged by their leaders to maintain positive relationships with family members that choose not to join or to leave the church .
The idea there is that if you actually care about people ( not just fake it ) , then maybe you can make their lives better , regardless of their religious or personal choices.Lumping all religions together as " laughable pile [ s ] of dog shit " does not reflect logic or reasoning .
If your conclusion that they are all wrong is logical or well reasoned , then please share your reasoning .
Smart people will listen to your arguments , though they may point out holes in them .
No reasonable person will be won over by being mocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at Mormons.
They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap.Just for the record, while that may happen in some cases, Mormons are encouraged by their leaders to maintain positive relationships with family members that choose not to join or to leave the church.
The idea there is that if you actually care about people (not just fake it), then maybe you can make their lives better, regardless of their religious or personal choices.Lumping all religions together as "laughable pile[s] of dog shit" does not reflect logic or reasoning.
If your conclusion that they are all wrong is logical or well reasoned, then please share your reasoning.
Smart people will listen to your arguments, though they may point out holes in them.
No reasonable person will be won over by being mocked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently some Scientologists (or other religious conservatives) have infiltrated Slashdot and want to censor my above post..</p><p>For the 15,000,000th time, "Troll" and "Flamebait" are not synonyms for "disagree and wish to censor."</p><p>To the moderators who marked my post down:  Fuck you.  Go worship your stupid fucking alien/zombie magic savior.  News flash:  He's not coming back for you.  Fucktards.</p><p>Now THAT is flamebait.  Try to remember the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently some Scientologists ( or other religious conservatives ) have infiltrated Slashdot and want to censor my above post..For the 15,000,000th time , " Troll " and " Flamebait " are not synonyms for " disagree and wish to censor .
" To the moderators who marked my post down : Fuck you .
Go worship your stupid fucking alien/zombie magic savior .
News flash : He 's not coming back for you .
Fucktards.Now THAT is flamebait .
Try to remember the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently some Scientologists (or other religious conservatives) have infiltrated Slashdot and want to censor my above post..For the 15,000,000th time, "Troll" and "Flamebait" are not synonyms for "disagree and wish to censor.
"To the moderators who marked my post down:  Fuck you.
Go worship your stupid fucking alien/zombie magic savior.
News flash:  He's not coming back for you.
Fucktards.Now THAT is flamebait.
Try to remember the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887723</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Offtopic: Actually in regards to certain groups, or time periods the French versions of the inquisition were incredibly brutal. Just ask Jacques de Molay.

Anyway, I'd whole heartedly agree with banning Scientology; not because of their ridiculous 'beliefs', but because they're a dangerous cult with a long history of fraud, conspiracy, and extortion, as well as abuse, neglect, and mistreatment of members, with no indication of stopping. Scientology is not actually a religion; its a criminal organization, and such deserves none of the protection given to religion, nor any of the respect.

(I might be inclined to be a little more friendly with the Freezoners, but seriously, fuck the CoS)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offtopic : Actually in regards to certain groups , or time periods the French versions of the inquisition were incredibly brutal .
Just ask Jacques de Molay .
Anyway , I 'd whole heartedly agree with banning Scientology ; not because of their ridiculous 'beliefs ' , but because they 're a dangerous cult with a long history of fraud , conspiracy , and extortion , as well as abuse , neglect , and mistreatment of members , with no indication of stopping .
Scientology is not actually a religion ; its a criminal organization , and such deserves none of the protection given to religion , nor any of the respect .
( I might be inclined to be a little more friendly with the Freezoners , but seriously , fuck the CoS )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offtopic: Actually in regards to certain groups, or time periods the French versions of the inquisition were incredibly brutal.
Just ask Jacques de Molay.
Anyway, I'd whole heartedly agree with banning Scientology; not because of their ridiculous 'beliefs', but because they're a dangerous cult with a long history of fraud, conspiracy, and extortion, as well as abuse, neglect, and mistreatment of members, with no indication of stopping.
Scientology is not actually a religion; its a criminal organization, and such deserves none of the protection given to religion, nor any of the respect.
(I might be inclined to be a little more friendly with the Freezoners, but seriously, fuck the CoS)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29892169</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256653620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you missed the point.  He has many friends, of varying religions.  One can assume he didn't befriend any fundamentalist nutjobs (and contrary to your opinion, there are people who can handle being told "I think your religion is wrong").  Then, some of those friends were converted to Scientology and now hate him for not believing in Scientology, too.  This shows that Scientology is far more brainwashing and hateful than any modern religion.<br>
<i>Disclaimer: I do not consider any religion which advocates violence against non-members to be "modern".</i>
<br> <br>
Side note: Who would wear an athiest-themed t-shirt?  I mean, this is an area where we're supposed to be better than the religious: no annoying public displays.  Hell, almost every day I walk by a truck with "I Love You, Jesus" painted on the rear window in big, bold lettering, but it doesn't make me want to paint "Your God Is a Lie" on my car!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed the point .
He has many friends , of varying religions .
One can assume he did n't befriend any fundamentalist nutjobs ( and contrary to your opinion , there are people who can handle being told " I think your religion is wrong " ) .
Then , some of those friends were converted to Scientology and now hate him for not believing in Scientology , too .
This shows that Scientology is far more brainwashing and hateful than any modern religion .
Disclaimer : I do not consider any religion which advocates violence against non-members to be " modern " .
Side note : Who would wear an athiest-themed t-shirt ?
I mean , this is an area where we 're supposed to be better than the religious : no annoying public displays .
Hell , almost every day I walk by a truck with " I Love You , Jesus " painted on the rear window in big , bold lettering , but it does n't make me want to paint " Your God Is a Lie " on my car !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed the point.
He has many friends, of varying religions.
One can assume he didn't befriend any fundamentalist nutjobs (and contrary to your opinion, there are people who can handle being told "I think your religion is wrong").
Then, some of those friends were converted to Scientology and now hate him for not believing in Scientology, too.
This shows that Scientology is far more brainwashing and hateful than any modern religion.
Disclaimer: I do not consider any religion which advocates violence against non-members to be "modern".
Side note: Who would wear an athiest-themed t-shirt?
I mean, this is an area where we're supposed to be better than the religious: no annoying public displays.
Hell, almost every day I walk by a truck with "I Love You, Jesus" painted on the rear window in big, bold lettering, but it doesn't make me want to paint "Your God Is a Lie" on my car!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888003</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>LandDolphin</author>
	<datestamp>1256676480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.</p></div><p>True, while not as bad as it was ~1400A.D., it's still has a large affect on people that live in towns where the vast majority are of the religion.   (Places like Utah, Idaho)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.True , while not as bad as it was ~ 1400A.D. , it 's still has a large affect on people that live in towns where the vast majority are of the religion .
( Places like Utah , Idaho )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.True, while not as bad as it was ~1400A.D., it's still has a large affect on people that live in towns where the vast majority are of the religion.
(Places like Utah, Idaho)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888085</id>
	<title>(AHEM) final irony</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1256676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientology has its personal crusade against Psychology and Psychiatry, like because they are the branches of Science most likely to out their bogus claims.</p><p>Perhaps the final irony of Scientology is that L. Ron Hubbard died while taking psych drugs. Virtually all of their membership doesn't know this, and would consider it a vicious lie if they heard it, despite the fact that it's a matter of public record as reported by the local police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientology has its personal crusade against Psychology and Psychiatry , like because they are the branches of Science most likely to out their bogus claims.Perhaps the final irony of Scientology is that L. Ron Hubbard died while taking psych drugs .
Virtually all of their membership does n't know this , and would consider it a vicious lie if they heard it , despite the fact that it 's a matter of public record as reported by the local police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientology has its personal crusade against Psychology and Psychiatry, like because they are the branches of Science most likely to out their bogus claims.Perhaps the final irony of Scientology is that L. Ron Hubbard died while taking psych drugs.
Virtually all of their membership doesn't know this, and would consider it a vicious lie if they heard it, despite the fact that it's a matter of public record as reported by the local police.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894323</id>
	<title>I'm sure it has been said before</title>
	<author>saiha</author>
	<datestamp>1256722680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is quite disingenuous. If you convict one religion (yes, it is a religion as much as any other) of fraud you have to convict all of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is quite disingenuous .
If you convict one religion ( yes , it is a religion as much as any other ) of fraud you have to convict all of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is quite disingenuous.
If you convict one religion (yes, it is a religion as much as any other) of fraud you have to convict all of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29899987</id>
	<title>Only in France...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1256755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... well, at least not here in the USA. But if it weren't for the separation of Church and State, EVERY religion would eventually be up on fraud charges. And while I do think it's ludicrious and rather sad that anyone believes in a religion that EVERYONE KNOWS was invented by a schlock science fiction writer, with the express purpose of making big money, who announced said intentions to fellow writers (Harlan Ellison for one... google it) before the fact and all... it is their right to be just that stupid, at least here. And for me, this is only slightly less disturbing than religions founded on the wanderings of stone age desert dwellers a few thousand years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... well , at least not here in the USA .
But if it were n't for the separation of Church and State , EVERY religion would eventually be up on fraud charges .
And while I do think it 's ludicrious and rather sad that anyone believes in a religion that EVERYONE KNOWS was invented by a schlock science fiction writer , with the express purpose of making big money , who announced said intentions to fellow writers ( Harlan Ellison for one... google it ) before the fact and all... it is their right to be just that stupid , at least here .
And for me , this is only slightly less disturbing than religions founded on the wanderings of stone age desert dwellers a few thousand years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... well, at least not here in the USA.
But if it weren't for the separation of Church and State, EVERY religion would eventually be up on fraud charges.
And while I do think it's ludicrious and rather sad that anyone believes in a religion that EVERYONE KNOWS was invented by a schlock science fiction writer, with the express purpose of making big money, who announced said intentions to fellow writers (Harlan Ellison for one... google it) before the fact and all... it is their right to be just that stupid, at least here.
And for me, this is only slightly less disturbing than religions founded on the wanderings of stone age desert dwellers a few thousand years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887639</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256674920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Crazy Catholic tribunals prosecuting people on arcane doctrine! Usually resulting in the end of their life or excommunication.</p></div><p>Kinda sounds like the modern day legal system here in the USA.<br>Lawyers are the new priesthood and it is assumed that the lay person can't understand the arcane doctrine of the law without one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crazy Catholic tribunals prosecuting people on arcane doctrine !
Usually resulting in the end of their life or excommunication.Kinda sounds like the modern day legal system here in the USA.Lawyers are the new priesthood and it is assumed that the lay person ca n't understand the arcane doctrine of the law without one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crazy Catholic tribunals prosecuting people on arcane doctrine!
Usually resulting in the end of their life or excommunication.Kinda sounds like the modern day legal system here in the USA.Lawyers are the new priesthood and it is assumed that the lay person can't understand the arcane doctrine of the law without one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888269</id>
	<title>Of course they were convicted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256634360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a religion created by a washed up author who wrote about how great it would be to make up a religion and make lots of money.  I'm suprised that they don't get dinged more in court</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a religion created by a washed up author who wrote about how great it would be to make up a religion and make lots of money .
I 'm suprised that they do n't get dinged more in court</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a religion created by a washed up author who wrote about how great it would be to make up a religion and make lots of money.
I'm suprised that they don't get dinged more in court</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>countSudoku()</author>
	<datestamp>1256674800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>    Confirmed.  An ex girlfriend on mine used to work at Wells Fargo Bank.  The CO$ has literally dozens, if not hundreds, of individual accounts with more than several million deposited in each.  I'll bet this is not their only back either.  They have a shitload of cash for lawyering up.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Must be nice to be able to lie to stupid people, in the name of an imagined deity, to confiscate their savings.  I have a conscious and can't imagine the worthless people who can pull that off.  All religions suck, especially the fake ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Confirmed .
An ex girlfriend on mine used to work at Wells Fargo Bank .
The CO $ has literally dozens , if not hundreds , of individual accounts with more than several million deposited in each .
I 'll bet this is not their only back either .
They have a shitload of cash for lawyering up .
        Must be nice to be able to lie to stupid people , in the name of an imagined deity , to confiscate their savings .
I have a conscious and ca n't imagine the worthless people who can pull that off .
All religions suck , especially the fake ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    Confirmed.
An ex girlfriend on mine used to work at Wells Fargo Bank.
The CO$ has literally dozens, if not hundreds, of individual accounts with more than several million deposited in each.
I'll bet this is not their only back either.
They have a shitload of cash for lawyering up.
        Must be nice to be able to lie to stupid people, in the name of an imagined deity, to confiscate their savings.
I have a conscious and can't imagine the worthless people who can pull that off.
All religions suck, especially the fake ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887959</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>LandDolphin</author>
	<datestamp>1256676360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the first sentance of your original post:<p><div class="quote"><p>Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While you might follow up with good points later on in the post, that first line <b>is flamebait. </b> Try removing all of the "emotional" wording from your post and just supply the information.  It's not what you say as much as how you say it.  You worded thing in a flamebait manor.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the first sentance of your original post : Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit , but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there , like Christianity or Islam ? While you might follow up with good points later on in the post , that first line is flamebait .
Try removing all of the " emotional " wording from your post and just supply the information .
It 's not what you say as much as how you say it .
You worded thing in a flamebait manor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the first sentance of your original post:Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?While you might follow up with good points later on in the post, that first line is flamebait.
Try removing all of the "emotional" wording from your post and just supply the information.
It's not what you say as much as how you say it.
You worded thing in a flamebait manor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29892341</id>
	<title>So are they now going after the other "cults"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256655120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such as, for example, the one with all the pedophile priests and the rituals that include eating what they assert is human flesh?</p><p>Or do they intend to continue to subsidize it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such as , for example , the one with all the pedophile priests and the rituals that include eating what they assert is human flesh ? Or do they intend to continue to subsidize it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such as, for example, the one with all the pedophile priests and the rituals that include eating what they assert is human flesh?Or do they intend to continue to subsidize it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887877</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
All religions suck, especially the fake ones.
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
They're all fake.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All religions suck , especially the fake ones .
They 're all fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
All religions suck, especially the fake ones.
They're all fake.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29891891</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256650920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people, their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults"</p><p>Just to clarify your post</p><p>Mormon is a loony cult quite free and able to interact with people, their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults.</p><p>Fixed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people , their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults " Just to clarify your postMormon is a loony cult quite free and able to interact with people , their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults.Fixed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people, their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults"Just to clarify your postMormon is a loony cult quite free and able to interact with people, their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults.Fixed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29891249</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>TraumaHound</author>
	<datestamp>1256647080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The short version is that Christian salvation is free. I can go to church, I can read the bible, I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination.</p></div></blockquote><p>Christianity is only free if your time is free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The short version is that Christian salvation is free .
I can go to church , I can read the bible , I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination.Christianity is only free if your time is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short version is that Christian salvation is free.
I can go to church, I can read the bible, I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination.Christianity is only free if your time is free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29895773</id>
	<title>Fictionology is the future, not Scientology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual, The Onion is way ahead of the curve.  They described how <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31006" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">Scientology's days were numbered</a> [theonion.com] years ago.  This is just another sign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual , The Onion is way ahead of the curve .
They described how Scientology 's days were numbered [ theonion.com ] years ago .
This is just another sign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual, The Onion is way ahead of the curve.
They described how Scientology's days were numbered [theonion.com] years ago.
This is just another sign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887895</id>
	<title>Re:Convicted ? Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court found that the organization is legal, not that it's a legal church. The court made it clear if there's some similar case in the future, they are going to be banned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The court found that the organization is legal , not that it 's a legal church .
The court made it clear if there 's some similar case in the future , they are going to be banned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court found that the organization is legal, not that it's a legal church.
The court made it clear if there's some similar case in the future, they are going to be banned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29895525</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>broknstrngz</author>
	<datestamp>1256736480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What makes a religion "real"?

In Romania, where I live, the Orthodox church also has special tax status (they don't pay any) and they have state paid salaries. The same state gave and still gives them public land (mostly woods, which they cut down and sell). Why? They bring a lot of voters.

My point is that no one should get any civil benefits on a religious belief basis. Believing is something you shouldn't do at others' expense.

The middle ages never ended...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes a religion " real " ?
In Romania , where I live , the Orthodox church also has special tax status ( they do n't pay any ) and they have state paid salaries .
The same state gave and still gives them public land ( mostly woods , which they cut down and sell ) .
Why ? They bring a lot of voters .
My point is that no one should get any civil benefits on a religious belief basis .
Believing is something you should n't do at others ' expense .
The middle ages never ended.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes a religion "real"?
In Romania, where I live, the Orthodox church also has special tax status (they don't pay any) and they have state paid salaries.
The same state gave and still gives them public land (mostly woods, which they cut down and sell).
Why? They bring a lot of voters.
My point is that no one should get any civil benefits on a religious belief basis.
Believing is something you shouldn't do at others' expense.
The middle ages never ended...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887623</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1256674860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The significant difference is that we <a href="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scientology/skeptic/start-a-religion-faq/" title="faqs.org"> <em>know</em> </a> [faqs.org] that the Co$ was started with express intention of fleecing money from its drones.  With the others, we just have to use common sense to infer it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The significant difference is that we know [ faqs.org ] that the Co $ was started with express intention of fleecing money from its drones .
With the others , we just have to use common sense to infer it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The significant difference is that we  know  [faqs.org] that the Co$ was started with express intention of fleecing money from its drones.
With the others, we just have to use common sense to infer it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890545</id>
	<title>French here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256643360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in France</p></div><p>Since 1905 the French state recognize no religion. You can worship the great spaghetti monster and pretend to be a religion, it's not the problem of the French state if you don't break any law and regulation. Your so call religious organization will not give you any tax reduction. It only allow your organization to get donations and legacy legally. It should conform to strict financial control and is limited to non profit organization of the worship. If you want to do charity business, sell religious book, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's not considered as a religious activity and it become a regulars associations, sport club, etc. That why most of the so call new religious movement can't have the tax reduction, because they are not non profit organization and no tax reduction either!</p><p>Most established religions have multiple legal or associative entity with different statues, usually only one is a &ldquo;association cultuelle&rdquo; roughly a religious association. So the book store money, the charity money and the money for the organization of ceremonies never cross or mix. An association if it recognized of public interest can receive a tax cut ( mostly for the donors in fact ).  So you can have a religious association, a charity association of public interest and a book store recorded as a regular business for the same religion.</p><p>I'm atheist, I give time and money to the secours catholique a catholic charity association ( they are on the other side of my street ). I'm sure that none of my euro will ever pay a priest. In my view it's a pretty good system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in FranceSince 1905 the French state recognize no religion .
You can worship the great spaghetti monster and pretend to be a religion , it 's not the problem of the French state if you do n't break any law and regulation .
Your so call religious organization will not give you any tax reduction .
It only allow your organization to get donations and legacy legally .
It should conform to strict financial control and is limited to non profit organization of the worship .
If you want to do charity business , sell religious book , etc ... it 's not considered as a religious activity and it become a regulars associations , sport club , etc .
That why most of the so call new religious movement ca n't have the tax reduction , because they are not non profit organization and no tax reduction either ! Most established religions have multiple legal or associative entity with different statues , usually only one is a    association cultuelle    roughly a religious association .
So the book store money , the charity money and the money for the organization of ceremonies never cross or mix .
An association if it recognized of public interest can receive a tax cut ( mostly for the donors in fact ) .
So you can have a religious association , a charity association of public interest and a book store recorded as a regular business for the same religion.I 'm atheist , I give time and money to the secours catholique a catholic charity association ( they are on the other side of my street ) .
I 'm sure that none of my euro will ever pay a priest .
In my view it 's a pretty good system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in FranceSince 1905 the French state recognize no religion.
You can worship the great spaghetti monster and pretend to be a religion, it's not the problem of the French state if you don't break any law and regulation.
Your so call religious organization will not give you any tax reduction.
It only allow your organization to get donations and legacy legally.
It should conform to strict financial control and is limited to non profit organization of the worship.
If you want to do charity business, sell religious book, etc ... it's not considered as a religious activity and it become a regulars associations, sport club, etc.
That why most of the so call new religious movement can't have the tax reduction, because they are not non profit organization and no tax reduction either!Most established religions have multiple legal or associative entity with different statues, usually only one is a “association cultuelle” roughly a religious association.
So the book store money, the charity money and the money for the organization of ceremonies never cross or mix.
An association if it recognized of public interest can receive a tax cut ( mostly for the donors in fact ).
So you can have a religious association, a charity association of public interest and a book store recorded as a regular business for the same religion.I'm atheist, I give time and money to the secours catholique a catholic charity association ( they are on the other side of my street ).
I'm sure that none of my euro will ever pay a priest.
In my view it's a pretty good system.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888943</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>fyngyrz</author>
	<datestamp>1256636940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
Finally, there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today's mainstream Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or any other organized religion.
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Really?
</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>
There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You don't think Islamic suicide bombers are carrying an "us vs. them mentality? Or the 9/11 flight teams? Or the pope/catholics vs. anyone else? Or the sides in the conflict in Northern Ireland? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses, who *do* excommunicate (probably who the previous poster was thinking of when they said Mormons) Or the Mormons, with their tons of stashed-in-basement goodies, meant *only* for Mormons? Or Christians, constantly trying trying (and often succeeding) to get their religious agenda coded into US law? Methinks you are bewildered, or simply not paying attention.
</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>
the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...you know the pope's words are "god's word", right? Also, if you don't think enlisting some person as a suicide bomber by feeding them superstitious drivel is practical enslavement... or that coercing people into any kind of behavior upon the promise of supernatural reward/punishment isn't practical enslavement... or that using little boys to relieve the sexual urges of the Catholic priesthood isn't practical enslavement... or that making the non-religious pay the portion of the taxes that the churches have wiggled out of isn't practical enslavement... or that the Hindu caste system isn't *very* practical enslavement...
</p><p>
well, I dunno. Perhaps you think that making people slaves because they are black isn't practical enslavement, either. No? Well, isn't enslavement the arbitrary forcing/coercion/deception of people to do your will? If so, how can you give Hinduism, Islam and Christianity a free pass here? What's the practical difference between a committed Scientology member and a committed low caste Hindu, or rank and file Islamist or Christian? They're all doing what the dogma of choice says, so where's the actual distinction?
</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>
In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Oh. You mean Islam and Christianity, right?
</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>
and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Which ones are they? The ones who burn witches, do "exorcisms", subjugate women? Or the ones who fly aircraft into buildings, walk into crowded public spaces with bombs strapped to their asses, and make women wear silly hats (or stone them to death)?
</p><p>
There are very few instances in human action where hypocrisy rises to such a level as when one religion, or an advocate thereof, points the finger at another and cries "evil!"
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today 's mainstream Abrahamic religions , Hinduism or any other organized religion .
Really ? There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization You do n't think Islamic suicide bombers are carrying an " us vs. them mentality ?
Or the 9/11 flight teams ?
Or the pope/catholics vs. anyone else ?
Or the sides in the conflict in Northern Ireland ?
Or the Jehovah 's Witnesses , who * do * excommunicate ( probably who the previous poster was thinking of when they said Mormons ) Or the Mormons , with their tons of stashed-in-basement goodies , meant * only * for Mormons ?
Or Christians , constantly trying trying ( and often succeeding ) to get their religious agenda coded into US law ?
Methinks you are bewildered , or simply not paying attention .
the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members ...you know the pope 's words are " god 's word " , right ?
Also , if you do n't think enlisting some person as a suicide bomber by feeding them superstitious drivel is practical enslavement... or that coercing people into any kind of behavior upon the promise of supernatural reward/punishment is n't practical enslavement... or that using little boys to relieve the sexual urges of the Catholic priesthood is n't practical enslavement... or that making the non-religious pay the portion of the taxes that the churches have wiggled out of is n't practical enslavement... or that the Hindu caste system is n't * very * practical enslavement.. . well , I dunno .
Perhaps you think that making people slaves because they are black is n't practical enslavement , either .
No ? Well , is n't enslavement the arbitrary forcing/coercion/deception of people to do your will ?
If so , how can you give Hinduism , Islam and Christianity a free pass here ?
What 's the practical difference between a committed Scientology member and a committed low caste Hindu , or rank and file Islamist or Christian ?
They 're all doing what the dogma of choice says , so where 's the actual distinction ?
In other words , the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed Oh .
You mean Islam and Christianity , right ?
and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations Which ones are they ?
The ones who burn witches , do " exorcisms " , subjugate women ?
Or the ones who fly aircraft into buildings , walk into crowded public spaces with bombs strapped to their asses , and make women wear silly hats ( or stone them to death ) ?
There are very few instances in human action where hypocrisy rises to such a level as when one religion , or an advocate thereof , points the finger at another and cries " evil !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Finally, there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today's mainstream Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or any other organized religion.
Really?
 
There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization


You don't think Islamic suicide bombers are carrying an "us vs. them mentality?
Or the 9/11 flight teams?
Or the pope/catholics vs. anyone else?
Or the sides in the conflict in Northern Ireland?
Or the Jehovah's Witnesses, who *do* excommunicate (probably who the previous poster was thinking of when they said Mormons) Or the Mormons, with their tons of stashed-in-basement goodies, meant *only* for Mormons?
Or Christians, constantly trying trying (and often succeeding) to get their religious agenda coded into US law?
Methinks you are bewildered, or simply not paying attention.
the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members

 ...you know the pope's words are "god's word", right?
Also, if you don't think enlisting some person as a suicide bomber by feeding them superstitious drivel is practical enslavement... or that coercing people into any kind of behavior upon the promise of supernatural reward/punishment isn't practical enslavement... or that using little boys to relieve the sexual urges of the Catholic priesthood isn't practical enslavement... or that making the non-religious pay the portion of the taxes that the churches have wiggled out of isn't practical enslavement... or that the Hindu caste system isn't *very* practical enslavement...

well, I dunno.
Perhaps you think that making people slaves because they are black isn't practical enslavement, either.
No? Well, isn't enslavement the arbitrary forcing/coercion/deception of people to do your will?
If so, how can you give Hinduism, Islam and Christianity a free pass here?
What's the practical difference between a committed Scientology member and a committed low caste Hindu, or rank and file Islamist or Christian?
They're all doing what the dogma of choice says, so where's the actual distinction?
In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed


Oh.
You mean Islam and Christianity, right?
and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations


Which ones are they?
The ones who burn witches, do "exorcisms", subjugate women?
Or the ones who fly aircraft into buildings, walk into crowded public spaces with bombs strapped to their asses, and make women wear silly hats (or stone them to death)?
There are very few instances in human action where hypocrisy rises to such a level as when one religion, or an advocate thereof, points the finger at another and cries "evil!
"

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888215</id>
	<title>Church?</title>
	<author>Better.Safe.Than.Sor</author>
	<datestamp>1256634120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientology is as much a church as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientology is as much a church as the Democratic People 's Republic of Korea is democratic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientology is as much a church as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890731</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>geekpowa</author>
	<datestamp>1256644260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that you morally object to tribalism and fundamentalism - not religion per se. I too object to tribalism. Religion can be a carrier for tribalism, but it is not the only carrier. Your own post above obviously carries highly antagonistic us vs them theme which in itself is tribalistic. </p><p>No shortage of atheists who go through great contortions to try and rationalise atrocities of the 20th century against religion in order to remain true to their beliefs that religion at heart is fundamentally evil - the crusades into the holy land and all of that. I must admit I used to think this way once too. But deeper forces are at work if you are seeking a theory that consolidates horrific events from the crusades, to the rise of Fascism and National Socialism to the Cambodian killing fields</p><p>As an atheist I consider religious doctrine silly. I'd sooner read Thomas Paine than read what some silly goat herder felt was important 2000 years ago and I don't try to hide my feelings about issues like this from the theists around me. But I try to remain respectful. Its a balancing act. I may of acted like a fundy atheist in the past from time to time, but fundamentalism/tribalism are ugly human traits no matter what the underlying cause - and I have little time for fundamentalists of any persuasion, hence there are no Scientologists in my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that you morally object to tribalism and fundamentalism - not religion per se .
I too object to tribalism .
Religion can be a carrier for tribalism , but it is not the only carrier .
Your own post above obviously carries highly antagonistic us vs them theme which in itself is tribalistic .
No shortage of atheists who go through great contortions to try and rationalise atrocities of the 20th century against religion in order to remain true to their beliefs that religion at heart is fundamentally evil - the crusades into the holy land and all of that .
I must admit I used to think this way once too .
But deeper forces are at work if you are seeking a theory that consolidates horrific events from the crusades , to the rise of Fascism and National Socialism to the Cambodian killing fieldsAs an atheist I consider religious doctrine silly .
I 'd sooner read Thomas Paine than read what some silly goat herder felt was important 2000 years ago and I do n't try to hide my feelings about issues like this from the theists around me .
But I try to remain respectful .
Its a balancing act .
I may of acted like a fundy atheist in the past from time to time , but fundamentalism/tribalism are ugly human traits no matter what the underlying cause - and I have little time for fundamentalists of any persuasion , hence there are no Scientologists in my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that you morally object to tribalism and fundamentalism - not religion per se.
I too object to tribalism.
Religion can be a carrier for tribalism, but it is not the only carrier.
Your own post above obviously carries highly antagonistic us vs them theme which in itself is tribalistic.
No shortage of atheists who go through great contortions to try and rationalise atrocities of the 20th century against religion in order to remain true to their beliefs that religion at heart is fundamentally evil - the crusades into the holy land and all of that.
I must admit I used to think this way once too.
But deeper forces are at work if you are seeking a theory that consolidates horrific events from the crusades, to the rise of Fascism and National Socialism to the Cambodian killing fieldsAs an atheist I consider religious doctrine silly.
I'd sooner read Thomas Paine than read what some silly goat herder felt was important 2000 years ago and I don't try to hide my feelings about issues like this from the theists around me.
But I try to remain respectful.
Its a balancing act.
I may of acted like a fundy atheist in the past from time to time, but fundamentalism/tribalism are ugly human traits no matter what the underlying cause - and I have little time for fundamentalists of any persuasion, hence there are no Scientologists in my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888889</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Kabuthunk</author>
	<datestamp>1256636700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the reasoning the OP said only retards join scientology is because it's difficult to imagine a smart, well-informed person believing it.  I mean... came to earth on a jet, aliens inside our bodies, blown up around a volcano... what part of that should make me think "Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable, and fits in with the history of the planet"?</p><p>In all honesty, I would LOVE to have a good, thorough talk with a fully-believing, intelligent scientologist.  No flaming, no yelling, hell, I won't even insult him or his beliefs.  I would just like to see if I can understand WHY he follows that religion as opposed to others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the reasoning the OP said only retards join scientology is because it 's difficult to imagine a smart , well-informed person believing it .
I mean... came to earth on a jet , aliens inside our bodies , blown up around a volcano... what part of that should make me think " Yeah , that sounds pretty reasonable , and fits in with the history of the planet " ? In all honesty , I would LOVE to have a good , thorough talk with a fully-believing , intelligent scientologist .
No flaming , no yelling , hell , I wo n't even insult him or his beliefs .
I would just like to see if I can understand WHY he follows that religion as opposed to others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the reasoning the OP said only retards join scientology is because it's difficult to imagine a smart, well-informed person believing it.
I mean... came to earth on a jet, aliens inside our bodies, blown up around a volcano... what part of that should make me think "Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable, and fits in with the history of the planet"?In all honesty, I would LOVE to have a good, thorough talk with a fully-believing, intelligent scientologist.
No flaming, no yelling, hell, I won't even insult him or his beliefs.
I would just like to see if I can understand WHY he follows that religion as opposed to others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893227</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>MinistryOfTruthiness</author>
	<datestamp>1256664300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me, Sir. I think you may be holding your keyboard upside-down. The price is clearly $666.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , Sir .
I think you may be holding your keyboard upside-down .
The price is clearly $ 666 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, Sir.
I think you may be holding your keyboard upside-down.
The price is clearly $666.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887763</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an atheist. I have many friends and family (including my wife) who subscribe to one of the many Christian variants. Also friends and colleagues who are Hindu, Sikh, Islam etc etc.
</p><p>Once upon a time I had lots of close friends who are now Scientologists. They actively, passionately, and publicly hate me and consider me to be a deeply immoral person. A SP in their own language.
</p><p>
The gulf between your 'typical' Scientologist and how they view the world and other mainstream faiths is in my own very direct experience, is an extra-ordinary gulf.
</p><p>
You can trot out the religious atrocities of the past, but your typical theist today is as likely as a non theist to be a decent, social, community minded person. Scientology followers, by virtue of their extremist and uncompromising doctrine, are very much an anti social vector, and the only community they respect is their own Scientology community. As for your uninformed comments about only 'retards' being attracted to Scientology - cults like Scientology are actually quite nuanced and sophisticated in their recruitment - and attracting educated white collar folk is their bread and butter. Read this book if you have the inclination. <a href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/" title="cmu.edu" rel="nofollow">A piece of blue sky</a> [cmu.edu]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an atheist .
I have many friends and family ( including my wife ) who subscribe to one of the many Christian variants .
Also friends and colleagues who are Hindu , Sikh , Islam etc etc .
Once upon a time I had lots of close friends who are now Scientologists .
They actively , passionately , and publicly hate me and consider me to be a deeply immoral person .
A SP in their own language .
The gulf between your 'typical ' Scientologist and how they view the world and other mainstream faiths is in my own very direct experience , is an extra-ordinary gulf .
You can trot out the religious atrocities of the past , but your typical theist today is as likely as a non theist to be a decent , social , community minded person .
Scientology followers , by virtue of their extremist and uncompromising doctrine , are very much an anti social vector , and the only community they respect is their own Scientology community .
As for your uninformed comments about only 'retards ' being attracted to Scientology - cults like Scientology are actually quite nuanced and sophisticated in their recruitment - and attracting educated white collar folk is their bread and butter .
Read this book if you have the inclination .
A piece of blue sky [ cmu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an atheist.
I have many friends and family (including my wife) who subscribe to one of the many Christian variants.
Also friends and colleagues who are Hindu, Sikh, Islam etc etc.
Once upon a time I had lots of close friends who are now Scientologists.
They actively, passionately, and publicly hate me and consider me to be a deeply immoral person.
A SP in their own language.
The gulf between your 'typical' Scientologist and how they view the world and other mainstream faiths is in my own very direct experience, is an extra-ordinary gulf.
You can trot out the religious atrocities of the past, but your typical theist today is as likely as a non theist to be a decent, social, community minded person.
Scientology followers, by virtue of their extremist and uncompromising doctrine, are very much an anti social vector, and the only community they respect is their own Scientology community.
As for your uninformed comments about only 'retards' being attracted to Scientology - cults like Scientology are actually quite nuanced and sophisticated in their recruitment - and attracting educated white collar folk is their bread and butter.
Read this book if you have the inclination.
A piece of blue sky [cmu.edu]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890987</id>
	<title>Re:Now show some balls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256645580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't France pretty at the forefront of anti-Islamic bigotry in Europe due to a large number of African Muslim immigrants and an overinflated sense of nationalist pride in the supremacy of their culture?  I do seem to remember them banning headscarves in classes to enforce secularism upon Muslims in a manner that would be completely illegal under US Freedom of Religion doctrine.</p><p>Then again, I'm sure it kind of chafes conservatives to see how much bigotry they have in common with secularist <b>French</b> people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't France pretty at the forefront of anti-Islamic bigotry in Europe due to a large number of African Muslim immigrants and an overinflated sense of nationalist pride in the supremacy of their culture ?
I do seem to remember them banning headscarves in classes to enforce secularism upon Muslims in a manner that would be completely illegal under US Freedom of Religion doctrine.Then again , I 'm sure it kind of chafes conservatives to see how much bigotry they have in common with secularist French people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't France pretty at the forefront of anti-Islamic bigotry in Europe due to a large number of African Muslim immigrants and an overinflated sense of nationalist pride in the supremacy of their culture?
I do seem to remember them banning headscarves in classes to enforce secularism upon Muslims in a manner that would be completely illegal under US Freedom of Religion doctrine.Then again, I'm sure it kind of chafes conservatives to see how much bigotry they have in common with secularist French people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888047</id>
	<title>THIS JUST IN...!</title>
	<author>quonsar</author>
	<datestamp>1256676660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientology sucks dead buffalo dick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientology sucks dead buffalo dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientology sucks dead buffalo dick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894563</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1256727300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nonsense. Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap." I say it's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults. Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins, not merely associating with people who don't buy your crap. Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.</p></div><p>From what I've seen, Mormonism has pretty much crossed over from being a cult to being a religion. In particular, they engage fully with the world, don't encourage suicide in the faithful, and don't try to extort in order to grant access to the hierarchy. (They encourage tithing, but that's actually fairly common across religions and isn't formally tied to advancing within the church.)</p><p>OK, to be fair Scientology doesn't appear to be generally encouraging suicide in the faithful either. But they're not fully engaging (i.e., they encourage converts to sever contact with their families) and, as the French court case showed, they're extorting. So they're a cult still, and unfortunately they seem to be intent on subverting normal mechanisms to serve their own warped ends (not a common feature of cults). If they lose the massive fixation with getting all their adherents' money, stop people from cutting themselves off, and <i>definitely</i> leave off trying to hack the legal system to attack their perceived enemies, they'll be a normal religion (with loopy beliefs, but hey, they're not unique in that!) The real question for them is whether they are willing to make the transition, or if they prefer living in their own bizarro-world instead with everyone else dumping on them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who " do n't buy into their crap .
" I say it 's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults .
Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins , not merely associating with people who do n't buy your crap .
Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.From what I 've seen , Mormonism has pretty much crossed over from being a cult to being a religion .
In particular , they engage fully with the world , do n't encourage suicide in the faithful , and do n't try to extort in order to grant access to the hierarchy .
( They encourage tithing , but that 's actually fairly common across religions and is n't formally tied to advancing within the church .
) OK , to be fair Scientology does n't appear to be generally encouraging suicide in the faithful either .
But they 're not fully engaging ( i.e. , they encourage converts to sever contact with their families ) and , as the French court case showed , they 're extorting .
So they 're a cult still , and unfortunately they seem to be intent on subverting normal mechanisms to serve their own warped ends ( not a common feature of cults ) .
If they lose the massive fixation with getting all their adherents ' money , stop people from cutting themselves off , and definitely leave off trying to hack the legal system to attack their perceived enemies , they 'll be a normal religion ( with loopy beliefs , but hey , they 're not unique in that !
) The real question for them is whether they are willing to make the transition , or if they prefer living in their own bizarro-world instead with everyone else dumping on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap.
" I say it's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults.
Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins, not merely associating with people who don't buy your crap.
Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.From what I've seen, Mormonism has pretty much crossed over from being a cult to being a religion.
In particular, they engage fully with the world, don't encourage suicide in the faithful, and don't try to extort in order to grant access to the hierarchy.
(They encourage tithing, but that's actually fairly common across religions and isn't formally tied to advancing within the church.
)OK, to be fair Scientology doesn't appear to be generally encouraging suicide in the faithful either.
But they're not fully engaging (i.e., they encourage converts to sever contact with their families) and, as the French court case showed, they're extorting.
So they're a cult still, and unfortunately they seem to be intent on subverting normal mechanisms to serve their own warped ends (not a common feature of cults).
If they lose the massive fixation with getting all their adherents' money, stop people from cutting themselves off, and definitely leave off trying to hack the legal system to attack their perceived enemies, they'll be a normal religion (with loopy beliefs, but hey, they're not unique in that!
) The real question for them is whether they are willing to make the transition, or if they prefer living in their own bizarro-world instead with everyone else dumping on them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893955</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256760780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've had cousins almost killed for leaving their church (minister hit on my cousin; 17yr old guy). He ended up with a broken jaw and a few hospital trips before he moved from ontario to BC. Oh and the more indoctrinated aunt ended up kidnapping the youngest kid took him to a different province and changed his name to save him from the godless home (he was 8). I'm sure I could actually write a few pages on this family.<br> <br>I know a transgender person who got told to leave his church. He decided to go anyways because he was ok with who he was. There was quite a bit of talking and he felt pretty uncomfortable so he decided not to return again. Unfortunately in the parking lot he was actually called an abomination and was spat on.<br> <br>And lastly my girlfriend who left her church was ignored and told it was a phase and that she should grow up. She was made to stay in her room during christmas<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... until her little sister also left the church. Then she was treated as scum, she was the anti-christ. They gave up on her completely and many of her cousins and grandparents actually disowned her. Her folks are from PA and TX.<br> <br>I know plenty of people that get thrown out of churches for divorces and such.<br> <br>Just because it isn't common right where you are doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all. Once you leave the city or go to the bible belt people are fucking insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had cousins almost killed for leaving their church ( minister hit on my cousin ; 17yr old guy ) .
He ended up with a broken jaw and a few hospital trips before he moved from ontario to BC .
Oh and the more indoctrinated aunt ended up kidnapping the youngest kid took him to a different province and changed his name to save him from the godless home ( he was 8 ) .
I 'm sure I could actually write a few pages on this family .
I know a transgender person who got told to leave his church .
He decided to go anyways because he was ok with who he was .
There was quite a bit of talking and he felt pretty uncomfortable so he decided not to return again .
Unfortunately in the parking lot he was actually called an abomination and was spat on .
And lastly my girlfriend who left her church was ignored and told it was a phase and that she should grow up .
She was made to stay in her room during christmas ... until her little sister also left the church .
Then she was treated as scum , she was the anti-christ .
They gave up on her completely and many of her cousins and grandparents actually disowned her .
Her folks are from PA and TX .
I know plenty of people that get thrown out of churches for divorces and such .
Just because it is n't common right where you are does n't mean it does n't happen at all .
Once you leave the city or go to the bible belt people are fucking insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had cousins almost killed for leaving their church (minister hit on my cousin; 17yr old guy).
He ended up with a broken jaw and a few hospital trips before he moved from ontario to BC.
Oh and the more indoctrinated aunt ended up kidnapping the youngest kid took him to a different province and changed his name to save him from the godless home (he was 8).
I'm sure I could actually write a few pages on this family.
I know a transgender person who got told to leave his church.
He decided to go anyways because he was ok with who he was.
There was quite a bit of talking and he felt pretty uncomfortable so he decided not to return again.
Unfortunately in the parking lot he was actually called an abomination and was spat on.
And lastly my girlfriend who left her church was ignored and told it was a phase and that she should grow up.
She was made to stay in her room during christmas ... until her little sister also left the church.
Then she was treated as scum, she was the anti-christ.
They gave up on her completely and many of her cousins and grandparents actually disowned her.
Her folks are from PA and TX.
I know plenty of people that get thrown out of churches for divorces and such.
Just because it isn't common right where you are doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.
Once you leave the city or go to the bible belt people are fucking insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889359</id>
	<title>thats because scientology is a dangerous cult</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256638740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean... just look at this shit:</p><p>Locate by meter read or an area of pressure, a body thetan or</p><p>group (cluster).  Run Incident 11.  If the BT does not blow off or</p><p>'the group break up and blow, then run Incident I on individual</p><p>BT's.  Each will blow off with an FIN.</p><p>When you can find no more on which to run Incident I's, once</p><p>wore locate a pressure area or by meter read on looking over body</p><p>run another Incident II.  Then Incident 1's on any.</p><p>Incident II made clusters of BT's.  Severe impacts and</p><p>(0082)</p><p>experiences ALSO make clusters.  (See the data called "Milazzo" in</p><p>this pack.)  Those who do not leave on running the impact or its</p><p>chain will leave when Incident I Is run on them.</p><p>Incident II sometimes forms gigantic clusters.  In such there</p><p>is a leader, an alternate leader and several (eight to eighteen)</p><p>more.  These were all implanted in different volcanic areas with</p><p>fractions of the nain 36 day implant and then "packaged" in Las</p><p>Palmas or Hawaii.  Thus if you run Incident II as far as "the</p><p>pilot" it blows up or loosens up and those who don't go away can</p><p>be run on Incident I's.</p><p>Do not speak your commands.  Just "intend" them.  A BT</p><p>controls easily.  BT's can be ARC broken by rough or careless</p><p>auditing.  You can also run an incident II on a BT and he doesn't</p><p>blow, but you accidentally run in Incident I on another one and</p><p>leave the first still there.  The remedy is to run Incident I's on</p><p>anything you find.</p><p>A very SP BT can be run on grades and Power and should then</p><p>respond to Incident II and Incident I.</p><p>After a BT leaves, some other BT may copy him or the incident</p><p>just run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean... just look at this shit : Locate by meter read or an area of pressure , a body thetan orgroup ( cluster ) .
Run Incident 11 .
If the BT does not blow off or'the group break up and blow , then run Incident I on individualBT 's .
Each will blow off with an FIN.When you can find no more on which to run Incident I 's , oncewore locate a pressure area or by meter read on looking over bodyrun another Incident II .
Then Incident 1 's on any.Incident II made clusters of BT 's .
Severe impacts and ( 0082 ) experiences ALSO make clusters .
( See the data called " Milazzo " inthis pack .
) Those who do not leave on running the impact or itschain will leave when Incident I Is run on them.Incident II sometimes forms gigantic clusters .
In such thereis a leader , an alternate leader and several ( eight to eighteen ) more .
These were all implanted in different volcanic areas withfractions of the nain 36 day implant and then " packaged " in LasPalmas or Hawaii .
Thus if you run Incident II as far as " thepilot " it blows up or loosens up and those who do n't go away canbe run on Incident I 's.Do not speak your commands .
Just " intend " them .
A BTcontrols easily .
BT 's can be ARC broken by rough or carelessauditing .
You can also run an incident II on a BT and he doesn'tblow , but you accidentally run in Incident I on another one andleave the first still there .
The remedy is to run Incident I 's onanything you find.A very SP BT can be run on grades and Power and should thenrespond to Incident II and Incident I.After a BT leaves , some other BT may copy him or the incidentjust run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean... just look at this shit:Locate by meter read or an area of pressure, a body thetan orgroup (cluster).
Run Incident 11.
If the BT does not blow off or'the group break up and blow, then run Incident I on individualBT's.
Each will blow off with an FIN.When you can find no more on which to run Incident I's, oncewore locate a pressure area or by meter read on looking over bodyrun another Incident II.
Then Incident 1's on any.Incident II made clusters of BT's.
Severe impacts and(0082)experiences ALSO make clusters.
(See the data called "Milazzo" inthis pack.
)  Those who do not leave on running the impact or itschain will leave when Incident I Is run on them.Incident II sometimes forms gigantic clusters.
In such thereis a leader, an alternate leader and several (eight to eighteen)more.
These were all implanted in different volcanic areas withfractions of the nain 36 day implant and then "packaged" in LasPalmas or Hawaii.
Thus if you run Incident II as far as "thepilot" it blows up or loosens up and those who don't go away canbe run on Incident I's.Do not speak your commands.
Just "intend" them.
A BTcontrols easily.
BT's can be ARC broken by rough or carelessauditing.
You can also run an incident II on a BT and he doesn'tblow, but you accidentally run in Incident I on another one andleave the first still there.
The remedy is to run Incident I's onanything you find.A very SP BT can be run on grades and Power and should thenrespond to Incident II and Incident I.After a BT leaves, some other BT may copy him or the incidentjust run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887441</id>
	<title>It had to be France...</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1256674020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are things for which the positivist, almost socialist state works wonderfully. This is one of those things. I say yay to the French and if in this instance you guys are thinking of bringing your old friend Ms. Guillotine out for a ride, I wouldn't cry a single tear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are things for which the positivist , almost socialist state works wonderfully .
This is one of those things .
I say yay to the French and if in this instance you guys are thinking of bringing your old friend Ms. Guillotine out for a ride , I would n't cry a single tear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are things for which the positivist, almost socialist state works wonderfully.
This is one of those things.
I say yay to the French and if in this instance you guys are thinking of bringing your old friend Ms. Guillotine out for a ride, I wouldn't cry a single tear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887719</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>lbalbalba</author>
	<datestamp>1256675340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'm sure L. Ron would laugh his ass off</p> </div><p>
Actually, L. Ron Hubbard *is* laughing his ass off, because as you are probably very well aware of, he never actually died but merely advanced to a higher state of being.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure L. Ron would laugh his ass off Actually , L. Ron Hubbard * is * laughing his ass off , because as you are probably very well aware of , he never actually died but merely advanced to a higher state of being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm sure L. Ron would laugh his ass off 
Actually, L. Ron Hubbard *is* laughing his ass off, because as you are probably very well aware of, he never actually died but merely advanced to a higher state of being.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888457</id>
	<title>Re:Revoke The Tax-Free Status Of The Catholic Chur</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256635080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Merely owning large quantities of land is not enough to be called a "real estate company".  What exactly makes you consider them a real estate <i>company</i>?</p><p>Linking to "How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) complaint" does not prove your claim that the Catholic Church is a real estate company.</p><p>It is customary to link a claim to a source, rather than to a solution.  (The proposed solution should be linked separately.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Merely owning large quantities of land is not enough to be called a " real estate company " .
What exactly makes you consider them a real estate company ? Linking to " How to File an IRS 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) complaint " does not prove your claim that the Catholic Church is a real estate company.It is customary to link a claim to a source , rather than to a solution .
( The proposed solution should be linked separately .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Merely owning large quantities of land is not enough to be called a "real estate company".
What exactly makes you consider them a real estate company?Linking to "How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) complaint" does not prove your claim that the Catholic Church is a real estate company.It is customary to link a claim to a source, rather than to a solution.
(The proposed solution should be linked separately.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887409</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what they get for making testable predictions.  That's also why they're not a religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what they get for making testable predictions .
That 's also why they 're not a religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what they get for making testable predictions.
That's also why they're not a religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887825</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history.  The Crusades.</p></div><p>Don't know much about history, do you? The Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim invasions. The Middle East (which was Christian) was conquered by Muslims in the 7th Century AD. The Muslims invaded Europe in 711AD and sacked Rome in 846AD. Europe's Dark Age was dark because of Muslim slave raids destroyed Europe economy. You might want to read a biography of Miguel Cervantes (the author of Don Quixote)....he was held as a slave by Muslims for 5 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Christians used " God " as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst * atrocities * in history .
The Crusades.Do n't know much about history , do you ?
The Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim invasions .
The Middle East ( which was Christian ) was conquered by Muslims in the 7th Century AD .
The Muslims invaded Europe in 711AD and sacked Rome in 846AD .
Europe 's Dark Age was dark because of Muslim slave raids destroyed Europe economy .
You might want to read a biography of Miguel Cervantes ( the author of Don Quixote ) ....he was held as a slave by Muslims for 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history.
The Crusades.Don't know much about history, do you?
The Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim invasions.
The Middle East (which was Christian) was conquered by Muslims in the 7th Century AD.
The Muslims invaded Europe in 711AD and sacked Rome in 846AD.
Europe's Dark Age was dark because of Muslim slave raids destroyed Europe economy.
You might want to read a biography of Miguel Cervantes (the author of Don Quixote)....he was held as a slave by Muslims for 5 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894157</id>
	<title>God != Religion</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1256763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every major religion aka <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious\_writings" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious\_writings</a> [wikipedia.org] is <i>obsolete</i> because they covertly promote irrational beliefs and induce you to socio-economic collusion.
It is better to align with fastest growing community of nonreligious &amp; rational people <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/the\_odd\_body\_religion/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/the\_odd\_body\_religion/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every major religion aka http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious \ _writings [ wikipedia.org ] is obsolete because they covertly promote irrational beliefs and induce you to socio-economic collusion .
It is better to align with fastest growing community of nonreligious &amp; rational people http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/the \ _odd \ _body \ _religion/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every major religion aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious\_writings [wikipedia.org] is obsolete because they covertly promote irrational beliefs and induce you to socio-economic collusion.
It is better to align with fastest growing community of nonreligious &amp; rational people http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/the\_odd\_body\_religion/ [theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888849</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1256636580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not the fine that interests me.. Its the "policy" of the church to go fanatically after its naysayers, and never admit guilt.  This isn't some family suing in civil court.  This would appear to be a fine levied by the government, which means they will have to fight the French Government (que the jokes....)  but really, they have a history of never paying their fines, stalling, stalling, stalling, and going fanatically after their accusers.. this could get interesting..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not the fine that interests me.. Its the " policy " of the church to go fanatically after its naysayers , and never admit guilt .
This is n't some family suing in civil court .
This would appear to be a fine levied by the government , which means they will have to fight the French Government ( que the jokes.... ) but really , they have a history of never paying their fines , stalling , stalling , stalling , and going fanatically after their accusers.. this could get interesting. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not the fine that interests me.. Its the "policy" of the church to go fanatically after its naysayers, and never admit guilt.
This isn't some family suing in civil court.
This would appear to be a fine levied by the government, which means they will have to fight the French Government (que the jokes....)  but really, they have a history of never paying their fines, stalling, stalling, stalling, and going fanatically after their accusers.. this could get interesting..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29897133</id>
	<title>Re:Revoke The Tax-Free Status Of The Catholic Chur</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1256743980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG!</p><p>I wonder if the Republican party is aware of this attack on the free market?</p><p>I'm sure if we bring it to their attention, they will all vote to end it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG ! I wonder if the Republican party is aware of this attack on the free market ? I 'm sure if we bring it to their attention , they will all vote to end it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG!I wonder if the Republican party is aware of this attack on the free market?I'm sure if we bring it to their attention, they will all vote to end it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889543</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256639400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For the 15,000,000th time, "Troll" and "Flamebait" are not synonyms for "disagree and wish to censor."</p></div></blockquote><p>You're the one interpreting them that way.  You are not a persecuted martyr.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the 15,000,000th time , " Troll " and " Flamebait " are not synonyms for " disagree and wish to censor .
" You 're the one interpreting them that way .
You are not a persecuted martyr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the 15,000,000th time, "Troll" and "Flamebait" are not synonyms for "disagree and wish to censor.
"You're the one interpreting them that way.
You are not a persecuted martyr.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887771</id>
	<title>Re:Convicted ? Yes, but...</title>
	<author>GQuon</author>
	<datestamp>1256675520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? As far as I understand, this case wasn't about getting religious recognition - only about the alleged fraud of these two business entities and individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
As far as I understand , this case was n't about getting religious recognition - only about the alleged fraud of these two business entities and individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
As far as I understand, this case wasn't about getting religious recognition - only about the alleged fraud of these two business entities and individuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887339</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256673600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much is a whetstone bridg.. errr.. "Thetan Detector" reading going for nowadays?  They'll just tell their culti.. err.. members that they all need to come in for a refresher scan at $100 a pop because this incident might have caused a Thetan eruption and Xenu might be now able to come out from behind the moon in his ship, so they have to monitor galvanic respons.. sorry.. THETAN levels more carefully for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is a whetstone bridg.. errr.. " Thetan Detector " reading going for nowadays ?
They 'll just tell their culti.. err.. members that they all need to come in for a refresher scan at $ 100 a pop because this incident might have caused a Thetan eruption and Xenu might be now able to come out from behind the moon in his ship , so they have to monitor galvanic respons.. sorry.. THETAN levels more carefully for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is a whetstone bridg.. errr.. "Thetan Detector" reading going for nowadays?
They'll just tell their culti.. err.. members that they all need to come in for a refresher scan at $100 a pop because this incident might have caused a Thetan eruption and Xenu might be now able to come out from behind the moon in his ship, so they have to monitor galvanic respons.. sorry.. THETAN levels more carefully for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29901419</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1256761800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>But it also helps to remember that the Catholic Church used to sell "indulgences", forgiveness for a sin purchased before committing the sin.</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it also helps to remember that the Catholic Church used to sell " indulgences " , forgiveness for a sin purchased before committing the sin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it also helps to remember that the Catholic Church used to sell "indulgences", forgiveness for a sin purchased before committing the sin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29902251</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256722560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All religions suck, especially the fake ones.</p></div></blockquote><p>Can't think of a religion that isn't fake. That is - one that actually can prove the existence of their deity. Is there such a thing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All religions suck , especially the fake ones.Ca n't think of a religion that is n't fake .
That is - one that actually can prove the existence of their deity .
Is there such a thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All religions suck, especially the fake ones.Can't think of a religion that isn't fake.
That is - one that actually can prove the existence of their deity.
Is there such a thing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888241</id>
	<title>Prove It!</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1256634240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say that all Scientologists must show their certificates of Anal Exploration by the Aliens that did it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say that all Scientologists must show their certificates of Anal Exploration by the Aliens that did it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say that all Scientologists must show their certificates of Anal Exploration by the Aliens that did it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29944376</id>
	<title>Re:Revoke The Tax-Free Status Of The Catholic Chur</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.</i> </p><p>Fuck you, you self-righteous bastard.</p><p>The "taxation at its highest use" is an old canard, used to seize property rights by only those fuckers wealthy enough to put the land to its "highest use".</p><p>It's also the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision a few years back to allow taking a <b>private</b> citizen's property and turning it over to a <b>private</b> corporation. The corporation would then build a mall which would bring in far higher property taxes than the original owner was paying.</p><p>Because we have such pusillanimous, conservative, business-fellating bastards on the SC, this is deemed to be the equivalent of a "public good".</p><p>Until these buttfucks came along, private property could be taken only if it were turned over directly to the state for a truly public use, such as a school, freeway or the like.</p><p>And you can be goddamned sure that compensation to the owner was only for its present value as a homesite, not the fantastically inflated value that it would represent to the corporation once they'd had their way with it. So the owner probably got only a couple hundred thousand, instead of the couple of million that the corporation would realize as square footage in a mall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else , so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use .
Fuck you , you self-righteous bastard.The " taxation at its highest use " is an old canard , used to seize property rights by only those fuckers wealthy enough to put the land to its " highest use " .It 's also the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision a few years back to allow taking a private citizen 's property and turning it over to a private corporation .
The corporation would then build a mall which would bring in far higher property taxes than the original owner was paying.Because we have such pusillanimous , conservative , business-fellating bastards on the SC , this is deemed to be the equivalent of a " public good " .Until these buttfucks came along , private property could be taken only if it were turned over directly to the state for a truly public use , such as a school , freeway or the like.And you can be goddamned sure that compensation to the owner was only for its present value as a homesite , not the fantastically inflated value that it would represent to the corporation once they 'd had their way with it .
So the owner probably got only a couple hundred thousand , instead of the couple of million that the corporation would realize as square footage in a mall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.
Fuck you, you self-righteous bastard.The "taxation at its highest use" is an old canard, used to seize property rights by only those fuckers wealthy enough to put the land to its "highest use".It's also the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision a few years back to allow taking a private citizen's property and turning it over to a private corporation.
The corporation would then build a mall which would bring in far higher property taxes than the original owner was paying.Because we have such pusillanimous, conservative, business-fellating bastards on the SC, this is deemed to be the equivalent of a "public good".Until these buttfucks came along, private property could be taken only if it were turned over directly to the state for a truly public use, such as a school, freeway or the like.And you can be goddamned sure that compensation to the owner was only for its present value as a homesite, not the fantastically inflated value that it would represent to the corporation once they'd had their way with it.
So the owner probably got only a couple hundred thousand, instead of the couple of million that the corporation would realize as square footage in a mall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888009</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>clarkn0va</author>
	<datestamp>1256676480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family</p></div><p>Citation needed</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.</p></div><p>Rescinding somebody's privileges of membership is the same as fraud? That's quite a stretch, and your painting every person who ever stood under the banner of religion with the same broad brush is reckless and disingenuous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They shun their own family if they do n't buy into their crap .
Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole ( brainwashed ) familyCitation neededCatholicism has excommunication , same idea.Rescinding somebody 's privileges of membership is the same as fraud ?
That 's quite a stretch , and your painting every person who ever stood under the banner of religion with the same broad brush is reckless and disingenuous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap.
Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) familyCitation neededCatholicism has excommunication, same idea.Rescinding somebody's privileges of membership is the same as fraud?
That's quite a stretch, and your painting every person who ever stood under the banner of religion with the same broad brush is reckless and disingenuous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887463</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1256674140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An interesting datum: most of the veredicts of the inquisition did not end in death for the condemned. It ended in their torture and a sentence of life as slaves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An interesting datum : most of the veredicts of the inquisition did not end in death for the condemned .
It ended in their torture and a sentence of life as slaves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An interesting datum: most of the veredicts of the inquisition did not end in death for the condemned.
It ended in their torture and a sentence of life as slaves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887341</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1256673600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one expects the French Inquisition!</p><p>No, really. No one at all. Complete surprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one expects the French Inquisition ! No , really .
No one at all .
Complete surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one expects the French Inquisition!No, really.
No one at all.
Complete surprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888907</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256636820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first heard about this on local daytime CBS news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first heard about this on local daytime CBS news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first heard about this on local daytime CBS news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29903269</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>renoX</author>
	<datestamp>1256727720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because discussions with 'normal' religious people are sooo productive!<br>Are you a masochist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because discussions with 'normal ' religious people are sooo productive ! Are you a masochist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because discussions with 'normal' religious people are sooo productive!Are you a masochist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893765</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Kierthos</author>
	<datestamp>1256671860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are major difference between the Church of Scientology and other major religions. Yes, any major religion has detractors. Yes, any major religion almost certainly has things in their history that they are not proud of today.</p><p>However...</p><p>Name me another major religion that hides it's religious documents under the excuse of them being trade secrets and copyrighted. *cricket noises* That's what I thought. Any publishing house in the world could publish the Bible. Any publishing house in the world could publish the Qu'ran. Or the Talmud. Not so with the Church of Scientology.</p><p>Go into any church, or mosque or temple... if you ask, you can probably get a copy of the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Talmud for free. Not so with the Church of Scientology. Show me another mainstream religion that hides their book of faith from non-believers/non-practitioners. *cricket noises* That's what I thought.</p><p>The Catholic Church does not claim to hold exclusive rights over practicing Christianity. Orthodox Judaism does not claim to hold exclusive rights to practicing their faith. Shi'a Islam does not say that Sunni Islam has no rights to exist. (Okay, yes, some of the more extremist members of them do, but not the faith as a whole.) The Church of Scientology? They claim that they alone can properly control and disseminate the knowledge of Scientology. They regularly used copyright and trade mark laws against "Free Zone Scientologists" (Scientologists who practice the philosophy of Scientolgy outside of any affiliation with the Church of Scientology.)</p><p>In most churches, temples, and mosques, you can join study groups for free to learn more about that faith. In the Church of Scientology, you have to pay to learn more about their beliefs. It is impossible to access the higher levels of Scientology without taking auditing and training courses that can run thousands of dollars.</p><p>The Church of Scientology also has a history of condemning and slandering ex-members and critics, as well as trying to discredit them through illegal tactics. Look up "Operation Freakout" or "Operation Snow White" on wikipedia for some examples. Or read the wikipedia entry for Gabe Cazares, former mayor of Clearwater, Florida. The Church of Scientology was planning on faking a hit-and-run accident in order to smear him.</p><p>I'm not saying that other mainstream religions are 100\% sweetness and light. They've made mistakes, and they've owned up to some of them. But the Church of Scientology ruins lives. It hides behind a facade of religion and spirituality and uses the law as a truncheon when it wants to and ignores it when it doesn't suit their purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are major difference between the Church of Scientology and other major religions .
Yes , any major religion has detractors .
Yes , any major religion almost certainly has things in their history that they are not proud of today.However...Name me another major religion that hides it 's religious documents under the excuse of them being trade secrets and copyrighted .
* cricket noises * That 's what I thought .
Any publishing house in the world could publish the Bible .
Any publishing house in the world could publish the Qu'ran .
Or the Talmud .
Not so with the Church of Scientology.Go into any church , or mosque or temple... if you ask , you can probably get a copy of the Bible , or the Qu'ran or the Talmud for free .
Not so with the Church of Scientology .
Show me another mainstream religion that hides their book of faith from non-believers/non-practitioners .
* cricket noises * That 's what I thought.The Catholic Church does not claim to hold exclusive rights over practicing Christianity .
Orthodox Judaism does not claim to hold exclusive rights to practicing their faith .
Shi'a Islam does not say that Sunni Islam has no rights to exist .
( Okay , yes , some of the more extremist members of them do , but not the faith as a whole .
) The Church of Scientology ?
They claim that they alone can properly control and disseminate the knowledge of Scientology .
They regularly used copyright and trade mark laws against " Free Zone Scientologists " ( Scientologists who practice the philosophy of Scientolgy outside of any affiliation with the Church of Scientology .
) In most churches , temples , and mosques , you can join study groups for free to learn more about that faith .
In the Church of Scientology , you have to pay to learn more about their beliefs .
It is impossible to access the higher levels of Scientology without taking auditing and training courses that can run thousands of dollars.The Church of Scientology also has a history of condemning and slandering ex-members and critics , as well as trying to discredit them through illegal tactics .
Look up " Operation Freakout " or " Operation Snow White " on wikipedia for some examples .
Or read the wikipedia entry for Gabe Cazares , former mayor of Clearwater , Florida .
The Church of Scientology was planning on faking a hit-and-run accident in order to smear him.I 'm not saying that other mainstream religions are 100 \ % sweetness and light .
They 've made mistakes , and they 've owned up to some of them .
But the Church of Scientology ruins lives .
It hides behind a facade of religion and spirituality and uses the law as a truncheon when it wants to and ignores it when it does n't suit their purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are major difference between the Church of Scientology and other major religions.
Yes, any major religion has detractors.
Yes, any major religion almost certainly has things in their history that they are not proud of today.However...Name me another major religion that hides it's religious documents under the excuse of them being trade secrets and copyrighted.
*cricket noises* That's what I thought.
Any publishing house in the world could publish the Bible.
Any publishing house in the world could publish the Qu'ran.
Or the Talmud.
Not so with the Church of Scientology.Go into any church, or mosque or temple... if you ask, you can probably get a copy of the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Talmud for free.
Not so with the Church of Scientology.
Show me another mainstream religion that hides their book of faith from non-believers/non-practitioners.
*cricket noises* That's what I thought.The Catholic Church does not claim to hold exclusive rights over practicing Christianity.
Orthodox Judaism does not claim to hold exclusive rights to practicing their faith.
Shi'a Islam does not say that Sunni Islam has no rights to exist.
(Okay, yes, some of the more extremist members of them do, but not the faith as a whole.
) The Church of Scientology?
They claim that they alone can properly control and disseminate the knowledge of Scientology.
They regularly used copyright and trade mark laws against "Free Zone Scientologists" (Scientologists who practice the philosophy of Scientolgy outside of any affiliation with the Church of Scientology.
)In most churches, temples, and mosques, you can join study groups for free to learn more about that faith.
In the Church of Scientology, you have to pay to learn more about their beliefs.
It is impossible to access the higher levels of Scientology without taking auditing and training courses that can run thousands of dollars.The Church of Scientology also has a history of condemning and slandering ex-members and critics, as well as trying to discredit them through illegal tactics.
Look up "Operation Freakout" or "Operation Snow White" on wikipedia for some examples.
Or read the wikipedia entry for Gabe Cazares, former mayor of Clearwater, Florida.
The Church of Scientology was planning on faking a hit-and-run accident in order to smear him.I'm not saying that other mainstream religions are 100\% sweetness and light.
They've made mistakes, and they've owned up to some of them.
But the Church of Scientology ruins lives.
It hides behind a facade of religion and spirituality and uses the law as a truncheon when it wants to and ignores it when it doesn't suit their purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888139</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1256676960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good use of the [HERO] tag subby!</p><p>Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise Crazy:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6moDLjGnYro" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6moDLjGnYro</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good use of the [ HERO ] tag subby ! Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise Crazy : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6moDLjGnYro [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good use of the [HERO] tag subby!Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise Crazy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6moDLjGnYro [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143</id>
	<title>The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1256672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A spokeswoman for the church, Agn&#232;s Bron, called the verdict "an Inquisition for modern times."</p></div><p>Help me out here, which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition\_(disambiguation)#Historical\_Events" title="wikipedia.org">Inquisition</a> [wikipedia.org] are you trying to draw a parallel to?  <br> <br>

In all of the most popular ones I think it was the several hundreds (possibly thousands) of individuals being persecuted for not believing Roman Catholicism (the popular religion).  Crazy Catholic tribunals prosecuting people on arcane doctrine!  Usually resulting in the end of their life or excommunication.  Now the current situation is the government of France in a single instance finding the Church of Scientology guilty of fraud.  Was there anything to do with religious doctrine in this case?  Because I thought fraud was fraud whether you're the pope or Richard Dawkins!  And the result is a paltry sum of $900,000 that is -- what? -- 1/7th of what it cost Tom Cruise to get to his last level of clairvoyance?  <br> <br>

To reiterate, you're not being persecuted for your beliefs but instead your finances<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which sound more like extortion through coercion to me than anything else.  <br> <br>

Go ahead and use this to try to appeal to people with a persecution complex.  If they have one, they won't find more persecution anywhere else than your ranks.  I'm glad that sane people -- when hassled by you -- can now be informed that your accounting practices in France have been legally decried as fraud!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A spokeswoman for the church , Agn   s Bron , called the verdict " an Inquisition for modern times .
" Help me out here , which Inquisition [ wikipedia.org ] are you trying to draw a parallel to ?
In all of the most popular ones I think it was the several hundreds ( possibly thousands ) of individuals being persecuted for not believing Roman Catholicism ( the popular religion ) .
Crazy Catholic tribunals prosecuting people on arcane doctrine !
Usually resulting in the end of their life or excommunication .
Now the current situation is the government of France in a single instance finding the Church of Scientology guilty of fraud .
Was there anything to do with religious doctrine in this case ?
Because I thought fraud was fraud whether you 're the pope or Richard Dawkins !
And the result is a paltry sum of $ 900,000 that is -- what ?
-- 1/7th of what it cost Tom Cruise to get to his last level of clairvoyance ?
To reiterate , you 're not being persecuted for your beliefs but instead your finances ... which sound more like extortion through coercion to me than anything else .
Go ahead and use this to try to appeal to people with a persecution complex .
If they have one , they wo n't find more persecution anywhere else than your ranks .
I 'm glad that sane people -- when hassled by you -- can now be informed that your accounting practices in France have been legally decried as fraud !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A spokeswoman for the church, Agnès Bron, called the verdict "an Inquisition for modern times.
"Help me out here, which Inquisition [wikipedia.org] are you trying to draw a parallel to?
In all of the most popular ones I think it was the several hundreds (possibly thousands) of individuals being persecuted for not believing Roman Catholicism (the popular religion).
Crazy Catholic tribunals prosecuting people on arcane doctrine!
Usually resulting in the end of their life or excommunication.
Now the current situation is the government of France in a single instance finding the Church of Scientology guilty of fraud.
Was there anything to do with religious doctrine in this case?
Because I thought fraud was fraud whether you're the pope or Richard Dawkins!
And the result is a paltry sum of $900,000 that is -- what?
-- 1/7th of what it cost Tom Cruise to get to his last level of clairvoyance?
To reiterate, you're not being persecuted for your beliefs but instead your finances ... which sound more like extortion through coercion to me than anything else.
Go ahead and use this to try to appeal to people with a persecution complex.
If they have one, they won't find more persecution anywhere else than your ranks.
I'm glad that sane people -- when hassled by you -- can now be informed that your accounting practices in France have been legally decried as fraud!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889159</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256637840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
Once upon a time I had lots of close friends who are now Scientologists. They actively, passionately, and publicly hate me and consider me to be a deeply immoral person.</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Don't worry. The Christians all think you're immoral. So do the Islamists. As for who hates whom, aren't you glad you weren't in the twin towers on 9/11? Aren't you glad you weren't around during <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion\_violence" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">these Christian acts of violence</a> [wikipedia.org]? Aren't you glad you were elsewhere when the Hindus got up and into the faces of the Christians, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/world/asia/26india.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [nytimes.com]? Or when they did the same for Islamists, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,213670,00.html" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [time.com]? Aren't you glad you can still draw a cartoon of Mohammad here in the US? I'm speaking legally, of course... that doesn't mean some moron Islamist won't come and clobber you for it anyway. Or, try wearing one of my <a href="http://fyngyrz.com/" title="fyngyrz.com" rel="nofollow">atheist themed tee-shirts (right column)</a> [fyngyrz.com] on the street, and see what happens. Better yet, try it in the American south. Oh yeah, you'll feel the love, all right.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>
The gulf between your 'typical' Scientologist and how they view the world and other mainstream faiths is in my own very direct experience, is an extra-ordinary gulf.
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No. Your experience is in the day to day "get along" strategies of the various religions. It has nothing to do with their world view, and doesn't exempt you from hidden disrespect and hate, or eventual violence. Eventually, an issue divisive enough will rear its head, and you'll see the strength of the relationships you have across these religious boundaries is to some degree imaginary. As an atheist, you are the lowest of the low to all religionists. For your own safety and the security of your family, you should keep that firmly in mind.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time I had lots of close friends who are now Scientologists .
They actively , passionately , and publicly hate me and consider me to be a deeply immoral person .
Do n't worry .
The Christians all think you 're immoral .
So do the Islamists .
As for who hates whom , are n't you glad you were n't in the twin towers on 9/11 ?
Are n't you glad you were n't around during these Christian acts of violence [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Are n't you glad you were elsewhere when the Hindus got up and into the faces of the Christians , here [ nytimes.com ] ?
Or when they did the same for Islamists , here [ time.com ] ?
Are n't you glad you can still draw a cartoon of Mohammad here in the US ?
I 'm speaking legally , of course... that does n't mean some moron Islamist wo n't come and clobber you for it anyway .
Or , try wearing one of my atheist themed tee-shirts ( right column ) [ fyngyrz.com ] on the street , and see what happens .
Better yet , try it in the American south .
Oh yeah , you 'll feel the love , all right .
: ) The gulf between your 'typical ' Scientologist and how they view the world and other mainstream faiths is in my own very direct experience , is an extra-ordinary gulf .
No. Your experience is in the day to day " get along " strategies of the various religions .
It has nothing to do with their world view , and does n't exempt you from hidden disrespect and hate , or eventual violence .
Eventually , an issue divisive enough will rear its head , and you 'll see the strength of the relationships you have across these religious boundaries is to some degree imaginary .
As an atheist , you are the lowest of the low to all religionists .
For your own safety and the security of your family , you should keep that firmly in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Once upon a time I had lots of close friends who are now Scientologists.
They actively, passionately, and publicly hate me and consider me to be a deeply immoral person.
Don't worry.
The Christians all think you're immoral.
So do the Islamists.
As for who hates whom, aren't you glad you weren't in the twin towers on 9/11?
Aren't you glad you weren't around during these Christian acts of violence [wikipedia.org]?
Aren't you glad you were elsewhere when the Hindus got up and into the faces of the Christians, here [nytimes.com]?
Or when they did the same for Islamists, here [time.com]?
Aren't you glad you can still draw a cartoon of Mohammad here in the US?
I'm speaking legally, of course... that doesn't mean some moron Islamist won't come and clobber you for it anyway.
Or, try wearing one of my atheist themed tee-shirts (right column) [fyngyrz.com] on the street, and see what happens.
Better yet, try it in the American south.
Oh yeah, you'll feel the love, all right.
:)
 
The gulf between your 'typical' Scientologist and how they view the world and other mainstream faiths is in my own very direct experience, is an extra-ordinary gulf.
No. Your experience is in the day to day "get along" strategies of the various religions.
It has nothing to do with their world view, and doesn't exempt you from hidden disrespect and hate, or eventual violence.
Eventually, an issue divisive enough will rear its head, and you'll see the strength of the relationships you have across these religious boundaries is to some degree imaginary.
As an atheist, you are the lowest of the low to all religionists.
For your own safety and the security of your family, you should keep that firmly in mind.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887279</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1256673360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if something has hit slashdot, it wouldn't be all that surprising to hit bigger media</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if something has hit slashdot , it would n't be all that surprising to hit bigger media</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if something has hit slashdot, it wouldn't be all that surprising to hit bigger media</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894981</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure it has been said before</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1256731860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if they are actually committing fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if they are actually committing fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if they are actually committing fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888871</id>
	<title>Re:Revoke The Tax-Free Status Of The Catholic Chur</title>
	<author>quandmeme</author>
	<datestamp>1256636640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't discriminate. Revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL churches . . . Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.</p></div><p>Speaking about U.S. non-profits the bright line is "personal inurement" and I think that is a good place for it to say. <a href="http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=169403,00.html" title="irs.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=169403,00.html</a> [irs.gov] The government is therefore not placed in a position to say whether donating shoes to Africa or teaching computer skills in Dallas are more valuable. It just has to determine whether the activity results in individuals diverting untaxed income to their personal benefit. The government is also not put in a position of deciding whether atheists, spaghetti-monster-believers, or Mormons are more valuable to the communities where they exist.</p><p>Thus if the Church of Scientology loses a tax case it is because it has not respected personal inurement rules (or the related principle that donations must be gratuitous).</p><p>The U.S. system has the advantage of content-neutral enforcement but financial transparency. I would choose this result even if it means that non-profits I don't value or agree with get the benefits of the system. BTW, the rules for joint ventures and investment for non-profits are so restrictive, that some health care providers are converting from non-profits when they can. It's not a free-ride by any means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't discriminate .
Revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL churches .
. .
Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else , so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.Speaking about U.S. non-profits the bright line is " personal inurement " and I think that is a good place for it to say .
http : //www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id = 169403,00.html [ irs.gov ] The government is therefore not placed in a position to say whether donating shoes to Africa or teaching computer skills in Dallas are more valuable .
It just has to determine whether the activity results in individuals diverting untaxed income to their personal benefit .
The government is also not put in a position of deciding whether atheists , spaghetti-monster-believers , or Mormons are more valuable to the communities where they exist.Thus if the Church of Scientology loses a tax case it is because it has not respected personal inurement rules ( or the related principle that donations must be gratuitous ) .The U.S. system has the advantage of content-neutral enforcement but financial transparency .
I would choose this result even if it means that non-profits I do n't value or agree with get the benefits of the system .
BTW , the rules for joint ventures and investment for non-profits are so restrictive , that some health care providers are converting from non-profits when they can .
It 's not a free-ride by any means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't discriminate.
Revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL churches .
. .
Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.Speaking about U.S. non-profits the bright line is "personal inurement" and I think that is a good place for it to say.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=169403,00.html [irs.gov] The government is therefore not placed in a position to say whether donating shoes to Africa or teaching computer skills in Dallas are more valuable.
It just has to determine whether the activity results in individuals diverting untaxed income to their personal benefit.
The government is also not put in a position of deciding whether atheists, spaghetti-monster-believers, or Mormons are more valuable to the communities where they exist.Thus if the Church of Scientology loses a tax case it is because it has not respected personal inurement rules (or the related principle that donations must be gratuitous).The U.S. system has the advantage of content-neutral enforcement but financial transparency.
I would choose this result even if it means that non-profits I don't value or agree with get the benefits of the system.
BTW, the rules for joint ventures and investment for non-profits are so restrictive, that some health care providers are converting from non-profits when they can.
It's not a free-ride by any means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888235</id>
	<title>You forgot the First Condiment!</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1256634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd Really Rather You Did n't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness .
If Some People Do n't Believe In Me , That 's Okay .
Really , I 'm Not That Vain .
Besides , This Is n't About Them So Do n't Change The Subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness.
If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay.
Really, I'm Not That Vain.
Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</id>
	<title>I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256674320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?</p><p>If you're going to make it a crime to pressure people into giving money to a cult based on a bunch of idiotic stories, you might as well start with the older ones.</p><p>Look at Mormons.  They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap.  Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?  Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.</p><p>Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history.  The Crusades.  Manifest Destiny.  George Bush.  The list goes on.</p><p>In the scheme of things, bilking retarded celebrities out of their "hard"-earned cash just doesn't seem that bad to me.  Frankly, I find it amusing.  Scientology is the Stephen Colbert of religion.  Their own founder made it so ridiculously outlandish that only a total idiot would actually believe in it.  I'm sure L. Ron would laugh his ass off if he knew how much money Tom Cruise had forked over to his church.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit , but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there , like Christianity or Islam ? If you 're going to make it a crime to pressure people into giving money to a cult based on a bunch of idiotic stories , you might as well start with the older ones.Look at Mormons .
They shun their own family if they do n't buy into their crap .
Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole ( brainwashed ) family - that 's not extortion ?
Catholicism has excommunication , same idea.Christians used " God " as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst * atrocities * in history .
The Crusades .
Manifest Destiny .
George Bush .
The list goes on.In the scheme of things , bilking retarded celebrities out of their " hard " -earned cash just does n't seem that bad to me .
Frankly , I find it amusing .
Scientology is the Stephen Colbert of religion .
Their own founder made it so ridiculously outlandish that only a total idiot would actually believe in it .
I 'm sure L. Ron would laugh his ass off if he knew how much money Tom Cruise had forked over to his church .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously Scientology is a laughable pile of dog shit, but how is it any worse than any of the other superstitious cults out there, like Christianity or Islam?If you're going to make it a crime to pressure people into giving money to a cult based on a bunch of idiotic stories, you might as well start with the older ones.Look at Mormons.
They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap.
Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?
Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history.
The Crusades.
Manifest Destiny.
George Bush.
The list goes on.In the scheme of things, bilking retarded celebrities out of their "hard"-earned cash just doesn't seem that bad to me.
Frankly, I find it amusing.
Scientology is the Stephen Colbert of religion.
Their own founder made it so ridiculously outlandish that only a total idiot would actually believe in it.
I'm sure L. Ron would laugh his ass off if he knew how much money Tom Cruise had forked over to his church.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887327</id>
	<title>Now show some balls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see the French courts go after Islam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see the French courts go after Islam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see the French courts go after Islam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888861</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1256636580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is hardly the first time they've been hit in France, either, and it never did any good. L. Ron Hubbard himself was convicted of fraud there in 1978 (along with the head of the French branch), and several Scientologist leaders were convicted of embezzlement in 2001. They'll just regroup, like they did then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is hardly the first time they 've been hit in France , either , and it never did any good .
L. Ron Hubbard himself was convicted of fraud there in 1978 ( along with the head of the French branch ) , and several Scientologist leaders were convicted of embezzlement in 2001 .
They 'll just regroup , like they did then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is hardly the first time they've been hit in France, either, and it never did any good.
L. Ron Hubbard himself was convicted of fraud there in 1978 (along with the head of the French branch), and several Scientologist leaders were convicted of embezzlement in 2001.
They'll just regroup, like they did then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888007</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>TitusC3v5</author>
	<datestamp>1256676480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really wish I hadn't already used all of my mod points. This post is not a troll. There are some flamebait-ish qualities to that, but they're paired with some very valid points.<br> <br>

+1 Interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish I had n't already used all of my mod points .
This post is not a troll .
There are some flamebait-ish qualities to that , but they 're paired with some very valid points .
+ 1 Interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish I hadn't already used all of my mod points.
This post is not a troll.
There are some flamebait-ish qualities to that, but they're paired with some very valid points.
+1 Interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887943</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em><br>Well a 900k fine isn't going to be much. These guys have armies of members that fling money at that them.<br></em></p><p>Except that 4 officials from of the Church got suspended prison sentences. If there is another fraud scandal, they go directly to jail. And the justice probably won't be lenient for others,</p><p>Now that makes for interesting discussion in the "management" of the Scientology sect,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well a 900k fine is n't going to be much .
These guys have armies of members that fling money at that them.Except that 4 officials from of the Church got suspended prison sentences .
If there is another fraud scandal , they go directly to jail .
And the justice probably wo n't be lenient for others,Now that makes for interesting discussion in the " management " of the Scientology sect,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well a 900k fine isn't going to be much.
These guys have armies of members that fling money at that them.Except that 4 officials from of the Church got suspended prison sentences.
If there is another fraud scandal, they go directly to jail.
And the justice probably won't be lenient for others,Now that makes for interesting discussion in the "management" of the Scientology sect,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919</id>
	<title>Re:Revoke The Tax-Free Status Of The Catholic Chur</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1256676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't discriminate. Revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL churches. The tax exemption was part of a Faustian bargain between church and state; the church was supposed to take care of social services for the poor, and in return tithes weren't taxed. The churches long ago abrogated that responsibility and turned responsibility for the social "safety net" over to the state -- and yet they still retain their tax-exempt status?!? WTF?!? Here in Beaverton, the Catholic Church owns hundreds of acres of prime real estate, and yet they have the gall to insist that people suing them get nothing because they declared bankruptcy and their <b>church rules</b> state that church property cannot be taken away in a lawsuit -- as if their church laws trump the government laws?!? WTF?!? Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't discriminate .
Revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL churches .
The tax exemption was part of a Faustian bargain between church and state ; the church was supposed to take care of social services for the poor , and in return tithes were n't taxed .
The churches long ago abrogated that responsibility and turned responsibility for the social " safety net " over to the state -- and yet they still retain their tax-exempt status ? ! ?
WTF ? ! ? Here in Beaverton , the Catholic Church owns hundreds of acres of prime real estate , and yet they have the gall to insist that people suing them get nothing because they declared bankruptcy and their church rules state that church property can not be taken away in a lawsuit -- as if their church laws trump the government laws ? ! ?
WTF ? ! ? Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else , so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't discriminate.
Revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL churches.
The tax exemption was part of a Faustian bargain between church and state; the church was supposed to take care of social services for the poor, and in return tithes weren't taxed.
The churches long ago abrogated that responsibility and turned responsibility for the social "safety net" over to the state -- and yet they still retain their tax-exempt status?!?
WTF?!? Here in Beaverton, the Catholic Church owns hundreds of acres of prime real estate, and yet they have the gall to insist that people suing them get nothing because they declared bankruptcy and their church rules state that church property cannot be taken away in a lawsuit -- as if their church laws trump the government laws?!?
WTF?!? Make non-profits pay the same real estate taxes as everyone else, so that the free market can actually work to put underused properties to their best use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888089</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1256676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oo, can an iphone or ipod touch be used for that?  I foresee an official $999 app coming out soon from the CoS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oo , can an iphone or ipod touch be used for that ?
I foresee an official $ 999 app coming out soon from the CoS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oo, can an iphone or ipod touch be used for that?
I foresee an official $999 app coming out soon from the CoS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887703</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256675220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice, If it helps I was going to say it if you hadn't beaten me to it. Christianity has been fucking with progress taking money and killing people way longer than Scientology and it certainly affects my daily life more.<br> <br>I like the Colbert link.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice , If it helps I was going to say it if you had n't beaten me to it .
Christianity has been fucking with progress taking money and killing people way longer than Scientology and it certainly affects my daily life more .
I like the Colbert link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice, If it helps I was going to say it if you hadn't beaten me to it.
Christianity has been fucking with progress taking money and killing people way longer than Scientology and it certainly affects my daily life more.
I like the Colbert link.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129</id>
	<title>Convicted ? Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... The court also decided that the Scientology Sect^H^H^H^H Church is a 'legal' church, that should be allowed instead of banned in France.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... The court also decided that the Scientology Sect ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H Church is a 'legal ' church , that should be allowed instead of banned in France .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... The court also decided that the Scientology Sect^H^H^H^H Church is a 'legal' church, that should be allowed instead of banned in France.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29946492</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination.</i> </p><p>Well, kinda. If you're really poor, I guess. But one of the six(?) commandments of the Catholic church is that you "contribute to the support of your pastor". If you weren't raised a Catholic in the 40s or 50s, you might not have heard of this one. I doubt it's much emphasized these days.</p><p>OTOH, "support" is not tightly defined, as far as I know. You can contribute, as they say, "time, talent or treasure".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination .
Well , kinda .
If you 're really poor , I guess .
But one of the six ( ?
) commandments of the Catholic church is that you " contribute to the support of your pastor " .
If you were n't raised a Catholic in the 40s or 50s , you might not have heard of this one .
I doubt it 's much emphasized these days.OTOH , " support " is not tightly defined , as far as I know .
You can contribute , as they say , " time , talent or treasure " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination.
Well, kinda.
If you're really poor, I guess.
But one of the six(?
) commandments of the Catholic church is that you "contribute to the support of your pastor".
If you weren't raised a Catholic in the 40s or 50s, you might not have heard of this one.
I doubt it's much emphasized these days.OTOH, "support" is not tightly defined, as far as I know.
You can contribute, as they say, "time, talent or treasure".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893489</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1256668380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap."</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yeah, tell me about it. They come around every few months and try and convert me. &gt;\_&lt;<br> <br>

(Actually, they're very nice people. If you've ever listened to Garrison Keillor's descriptions of Minnesotans/Lutherans, they're kind of like that. I always chat with them for a few minutes.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who " do n't buy into their crap .
" Yeah , tell me about it .
They come around every few months and try and convert me .
&gt; \ _ ( Actually , they 're very nice people .
If you 've ever listened to Garrison Keillor 's descriptions of Minnesotans/Lutherans , they 're kind of like that .
I always chat with them for a few minutes .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap.
"
Yeah, tell me about it.
They come around every few months and try and convert me.
&gt;\_ 

(Actually, they're very nice people.
If you've ever listened to Garrison Keillor's descriptions of Minnesotans/Lutherans, they're kind of like that.
I always chat with them for a few minutes.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889967</id>
	<title>Re:Revoke The Tax-Free Status Of The Catholic Chur</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1256640900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we keep it going because the pope is a very funny guy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we keep it going because the pope is a very funny guy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we keep it going because the pope is a very funny guy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887497</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256674260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our chief weapon is fear. Fear and surprise.</p><p>And a two dollar fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our chief weapon is fear .
Fear and surprise.And a two dollar fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our chief weapon is fear.
Fear and surprise.And a two dollar fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1256675460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion? Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.</p></div><p>Nonsense. Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap." I say it's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults. Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins, not merely associating with people who don't buy your crap. Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.</p><p>Finally, there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today's mainstream Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or any other organized religion. There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization, the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members. In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed, and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations. With the former comes extreme (and deadly) actions, with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.</p><p>Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over, but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at Mormons .
They shun their own family if they do n't buy into their crap .
Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole ( brainwashed ) family - that 's not extortion ?
Catholicism has excommunication , same idea.Nonsense .
Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who " do n't buy into their crap .
" I say it 's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults .
Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins , not merely associating with people who do n't buy your crap .
Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.Finally , there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today 's mainstream Abrahamic religions , Hinduism or any other organized religion .
There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization , the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members .
In other words , the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed , and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations .
With the former comes extreme ( and deadly ) actions , with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over , but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at Mormons.
They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap.
Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?
Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.Nonsense.
Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap.
" I say it's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults.
Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins, not merely associating with people who don't buy your crap.
Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.Finally, there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today's mainstream Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or any other organized religion.
There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization, the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members.
In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed, and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations.
With the former comes extreme (and deadly) actions, with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over, but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888539</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1256635560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you were modded down doesn't mean that those users disagreed with you. It means that your post was filled with bigotry and, at best, a superficial understanding of what you were talking about.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, many mainstream churches have had a history of doing very bad things. That's what humans do. When people attempt to use religion to justify concepts that their religion EXPLICITLY rejects, however, it is not a fault of the religion, but rather the humans in charge. Many religions have gone on to do good things, even if there are idiots out there who attempt to use it to push against gay rights, science and freedom in general.</p><p>Please do not lump everyone together in one big group because it serves your argument. Rather, attempt to actually understand what you are talking about and the reasoning that others are using. Open mindedness works both ways, my friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you were modded down does n't mean that those users disagreed with you .
It means that your post was filled with bigotry and , at best , a superficial understanding of what you were talking about.Do n't get me wrong , many mainstream churches have had a history of doing very bad things .
That 's what humans do .
When people attempt to use religion to justify concepts that their religion EXPLICITLY rejects , however , it is not a fault of the religion , but rather the humans in charge .
Many religions have gone on to do good things , even if there are idiots out there who attempt to use it to push against gay rights , science and freedom in general.Please do not lump everyone together in one big group because it serves your argument .
Rather , attempt to actually understand what you are talking about and the reasoning that others are using .
Open mindedness works both ways , my friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you were modded down doesn't mean that those users disagreed with you.
It means that your post was filled with bigotry and, at best, a superficial understanding of what you were talking about.Don't get me wrong, many mainstream churches have had a history of doing very bad things.
That's what humans do.
When people attempt to use religion to justify concepts that their religion EXPLICITLY rejects, however, it is not a fault of the religion, but rather the humans in charge.
Many religions have gone on to do good things, even if there are idiots out there who attempt to use it to push against gay rights, science and freedom in general.Please do not lump everyone together in one big group because it serves your argument.
Rather, attempt to actually understand what you are talking about and the reasoning that others are using.
Open mindedness works both ways, my friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887993</id>
	<title>Source for that ..?</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1256676480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't read such a thing. The court merely declined to dissolve the cult altogether (what the prosecution requested), which would have been legally difficult considering that a scumbag lawmaker from scumbag Sarkozy's scumbag party passed an amendment that removed the penalty of dissolution for entities convicted of fraud a few months ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't read such a thing .
The court merely declined to dissolve the cult altogether ( what the prosecution requested ) , which would have been legally difficult considering that a scumbag lawmaker from scumbag Sarkozy 's scumbag party passed an amendment that removed the penalty of dissolution for entities convicted of fraud a few months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't read such a thing.
The court merely declined to dissolve the cult altogether (what the prosecution requested), which would have been legally difficult considering that a scumbag lawmaker from scumbag Sarkozy's scumbag party passed an amendment that removed the penalty of dissolution for entities convicted of fraud a few months ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29909167</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1256826060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$6.3*10^9? That's some expensive dope...</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 6.3 * 10 ^ 9 ?
That 's some expensive dope.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$6.3*10^9?
That's some expensive dope...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889947</id>
	<title>Re:Convicted ? Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256640840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The religion without sin, please, throw the first stone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>If being based on bullshit is grounds for being banned, every religion I know of will have a lot of problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The religion without sin , please , throw the first stone ; - ) If being based on bullshit is grounds for being banned , every religion I know of will have a lot of problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The religion without sin, please, throw the first stone ;-)If being based on bullshit is grounds for being banned, every religion I know of will have a lot of problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889307</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256638560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history.  The Crusades.</p></div><p>Don't know much about history, do you? The Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim invasions. The Middle East (which was Christian) was conquered by Muslims in the 7th Century AD. The Muslims invaded Europe in 711AD and sacked Rome in 846AD. Europe's Dark Age was dark because of Muslim slave raids destroyed Europe economy. You might want to read a biography of Miguel Cervantes (the author of Don Quixote)....he was held as a slave by Muslims for 5 years.</p></div><p>Rome's empire was invaded from the north too. Later when the Vikings emerged they plundered the continent into even darker times. Contrast that with the Muslims who settled for a while in southern Spain.  They built cities with libraries, universities and theaters at a time when the Christians to the north were living in mud hut villages. They had a library in one city that contained more books than existed in the whole of contemporary France at the time, and that was one of about seventy libraries in that one city.</p><p>It was Islam that carried on the work of Classical Greek/Roman civilisation with so many developments in mathematics -- why do you think half the words in modern mathematical English are Arabic words?</p><p>Islam gets a bad press in today's world (deservedly so, IMHO, since it seems to predisposed to extremism) but let's not get too carried away with the version of history that was written by the victors.  The Crusades were as much a political quest as a religious one.  The perversions of the Muslims were the 'threat from WMDs' of their day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Christians used " God " as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst * atrocities * in history .
The Crusades.Do n't know much about history , do you ?
The Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim invasions .
The Middle East ( which was Christian ) was conquered by Muslims in the 7th Century AD .
The Muslims invaded Europe in 711AD and sacked Rome in 846AD .
Europe 's Dark Age was dark because of Muslim slave raids destroyed Europe economy .
You might want to read a biography of Miguel Cervantes ( the author of Don Quixote ) ....he was held as a slave by Muslims for 5 years.Rome 's empire was invaded from the north too .
Later when the Vikings emerged they plundered the continent into even darker times .
Contrast that with the Muslims who settled for a while in southern Spain .
They built cities with libraries , universities and theaters at a time when the Christians to the north were living in mud hut villages .
They had a library in one city that contained more books than existed in the whole of contemporary France at the time , and that was one of about seventy libraries in that one city.It was Islam that carried on the work of Classical Greek/Roman civilisation with so many developments in mathematics -- why do you think half the words in modern mathematical English are Arabic words ? Islam gets a bad press in today 's world ( deservedly so , IMHO , since it seems to predisposed to extremism ) but let 's not get too carried away with the version of history that was written by the victors .
The Crusades were as much a political quest as a religious one .
The perversions of the Muslims were the 'threat from WMDs ' of their day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christians used "God" as an excuse to perpetrate some of the worst *atrocities* in history.
The Crusades.Don't know much about history, do you?
The Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim invasions.
The Middle East (which was Christian) was conquered by Muslims in the 7th Century AD.
The Muslims invaded Europe in 711AD and sacked Rome in 846AD.
Europe's Dark Age was dark because of Muslim slave raids destroyed Europe economy.
You might want to read a biography of Miguel Cervantes (the author of Don Quixote)....he was held as a slave by Muslims for 5 years.Rome's empire was invaded from the north too.
Later when the Vikings emerged they plundered the continent into even darker times.
Contrast that with the Muslims who settled for a while in southern Spain.
They built cities with libraries, universities and theaters at a time when the Christians to the north were living in mud hut villages.
They had a library in one city that contained more books than existed in the whole of contemporary France at the time, and that was one of about seventy libraries in that one city.It was Islam that carried on the work of Classical Greek/Roman civilisation with so many developments in mathematics -- why do you think half the words in modern mathematical English are Arabic words?Islam gets a bad press in today's world (deservedly so, IMHO, since it seems to predisposed to extremism) but let's not get too carried away with the version of history that was written by the victors.
The Crusades were as much a political quest as a religious one.
The perversions of the Muslims were the 'threat from WMDs' of their day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887735</id>
	<title>Re:The Ammunition for Both Sides</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1256675400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How is the trial coming on?"<br>"We surrendered."<br>"So you lost?"<br>"No, we won."<br>"How that?"<br>"Well, the accused was prepared to handle everything, except for us to surrender."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How is the trial coming on ?
" " We surrendered .
" " So you lost ?
" " No , we won .
" " How that ?
" " Well , the accused was prepared to handle everything , except for us to surrender .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How is the trial coming on?
""We surrendered.
""So you lost?
""No, we won.
""How that?
""Well, the accused was prepared to handle everything, except for us to surrender.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888613</id>
	<title>Re:Fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256635740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, why?<br>Aren't people entitled to their own opinions and beliefs in France, or anywhere else, anymore?<br>How can you scrutinize so blindly? Because it insults you?</p><p>If anything please endorse scientology as a religion, it is no less insulting.</p><p>-Lead the herds into the green pastures by showing them their errenous paths! A-hum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , why ? Are n't people entitled to their own opinions and beliefs in France , or anywhere else , anymore ? How can you scrutinize so blindly ?
Because it insults you ? If anything please endorse scientology as a religion , it is no less insulting.-Lead the herds into the green pastures by showing them their errenous paths !
A-hum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, why?Aren't people entitled to their own opinions and beliefs in France, or anywhere else, anymore?How can you scrutinize so blindly?
Because it insults you?If anything please endorse scientology as a religion, it is no less insulting.-Lead the herds into the green pastures by showing them their errenous paths!
A-hum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889081</id>
	<title>YAY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256637480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we move to the Catholic church next? Can France get the Pope extradited?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we move to the Catholic church next ?
Can France get the Pope extradited ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we move to the Catholic church next?
Can France get the Pope extradited?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29892675</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but..</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1256658180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Paranoid much?<br> <br>Assuming people are intolerent bigots for their faith is a dellusional generalization, and equally intolerent and bigotted. It's the kind of divisive prejudice that leads one group to lash out at another. Sure there's still violence, but it's getting more and more isolated. The only way to wipe it out completely is if everybody crosses borders, gets to know everybody else and realizes that despite all our differences, we all have the capacity to be decent people.<br> <br>If I wore a shirt that said, "I'm an atheist" down the street, I doubt I'd take much flak for it. All it does is announce something about myself (which is true). Similarly, I don't give any flak to the people I see wearing Christian-themed shirts. The t-shirt you advertise on your site about "Cleaning up after your dogma" is actively insulting another faith by suggesting the destruction of the bible. It's not an "I'm an atheist" shirt. It's a shirt that proclaims "You're wrong for being Christian." It's the equivalent of a Christian wearing a shirt that says "Ask me about how you'll burn in Hell for not loving Jesus." Both shirts are about baiting people and starting fights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paranoid much ?
Assuming people are intolerent bigots for their faith is a dellusional generalization , and equally intolerent and bigotted .
It 's the kind of divisive prejudice that leads one group to lash out at another .
Sure there 's still violence , but it 's getting more and more isolated .
The only way to wipe it out completely is if everybody crosses borders , gets to know everybody else and realizes that despite all our differences , we all have the capacity to be decent people .
If I wore a shirt that said , " I 'm an atheist " down the street , I doubt I 'd take much flak for it .
All it does is announce something about myself ( which is true ) .
Similarly , I do n't give any flak to the people I see wearing Christian-themed shirts .
The t-shirt you advertise on your site about " Cleaning up after your dogma " is actively insulting another faith by suggesting the destruction of the bible .
It 's not an " I 'm an atheist " shirt .
It 's a shirt that proclaims " You 're wrong for being Christian .
" It 's the equivalent of a Christian wearing a shirt that says " Ask me about how you 'll burn in Hell for not loving Jesus .
" Both shirts are about baiting people and starting fights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paranoid much?
Assuming people are intolerent bigots for their faith is a dellusional generalization, and equally intolerent and bigotted.
It's the kind of divisive prejudice that leads one group to lash out at another.
Sure there's still violence, but it's getting more and more isolated.
The only way to wipe it out completely is if everybody crosses borders, gets to know everybody else and realizes that despite all our differences, we all have the capacity to be decent people.
If I wore a shirt that said, "I'm an atheist" down the street, I doubt I'd take much flak for it.
All it does is announce something about myself (which is true).
Similarly, I don't give any flak to the people I see wearing Christian-themed shirts.
The t-shirt you advertise on your site about "Cleaning up after your dogma" is actively insulting another faith by suggesting the destruction of the bible.
It's not an "I'm an atheist" shirt.
It's a shirt that proclaims "You're wrong for being Christian.
" It's the equivalent of a Christian wearing a shirt that says "Ask me about how you'll burn in Hell for not loving Jesus.
" Both shirts are about baiting people and starting fights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889159</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29903269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29892169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29944376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29897133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29892675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29902251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29895525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29891249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29896143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29891891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29909167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29946492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1731221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888089
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29902251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29896143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29895525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29909167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29897133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29944376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1731221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29891891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888091
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29893955
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888085
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29894563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888889
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29903269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29889159
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29892675
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29892169
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29890731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29887875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29888219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29946492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1731221.29891249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
