<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_1634218</id>
	<title>Leaked <em>Modern Warfare 2</em> Footage Causes Outrage</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256751720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:my/.username@@@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">eldavojohn</a> writes <i>"Game Politics makes note of <a href="http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/10/28/leaked-modern-warfare-2-footage-shocks">criticism over leaked footage</a> from the upcoming <em>Modern Warfare 2</em> release. (Spoiler warning.) Footage shows the player engaged in <a href="http://news.spong.com/article/19606/Activision-Confirms-Civilian-Slaughter-Scene-in-Modern-Warfare-2">killing civilians with terrorists</a> (relevant video begins at about 1:50, <a href="http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/61038">second source</a> in case of DMCA).  Several game sites are <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6238205.html">asking if this is taking things too far</a>.  Probably just advertising at work, but the footage is indeed controversial &mdash; the question remains whether or not it is out of context."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Game Politics makes note of criticism over leaked footage from the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 release .
( Spoiler warning .
) Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists ( relevant video begins at about 1 : 50 , second source in case of DMCA ) .
Several game sites are asking if this is taking things too far .
Probably just advertising at work , but the footage is indeed controversial    the question remains whether or not it is out of context .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Game Politics makes note of criticism over leaked footage from the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 release.
(Spoiler warning.
) Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists (relevant video begins at about 1:50, second source in case of DMCA).
Several game sites are asking if this is taking things too far.
Probably just advertising at work, but the footage is indeed controversial — the question remains whether or not it is out of context.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902553</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>CyberLife</author>
	<datestamp>1256724000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. A similar scenario can be found in World of Warcraft in the initial quests for Death Knights. But that is obviously fantasy so it's ok, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
A similar scenario can be found in World of Warcraft in the initial quests for Death Knights .
But that is obviously fantasy so it 's ok , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
A similar scenario can be found in World of Warcraft in the initial quests for Death Knights.
But that is obviously fantasy so it's ok, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904239</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256733540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good. What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her. One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I vote with my money. You won't see me buying games like these. About the most violent game I have is Left4Dead or TF2. I'm far more attracted to RTS/TBS and RPGs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Example : most people do n't think that brutally raping a young girl ( say , 8 years old ) and then slaughtering her is particularly good .
What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her .
One is doing it in real life , one is doing it virtually ; both in order to do it virtually , there must be some desire to " do it , " right ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay [ wikipedia.org ] I vote with my money .
You wo n't see me buying games like these .
About the most violent game I have is Left4Dead or TF2 .
I 'm far more attracted to RTS/TBS and RPGs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good.
What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her.
One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay [wikipedia.org]I vote with my money.
You won't see me buying games like these.
About the most violent game I have is Left4Dead or TF2.
I'm far more attracted to RTS/TBS and RPGs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901253</id>
	<title>Re:More Realistic IMHO</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1256761080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In modern warfare, the enemy hides behind civilians</p></div><p>In most warfare, in most times, the enemy hides behind civilians.</p><p>The enemy isn't the soldiers in the field;</p><p>The enemy is the man giving the orders and the political directives and that enemy is almost never on the field of battle but hiding behind their lines sheltering among their own civilians.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In modern warfare , the enemy hides behind civiliansIn most warfare , in most times , the enemy hides behind civilians.The enemy is n't the soldiers in the field ; The enemy is the man giving the orders and the political directives and that enemy is almost never on the field of battle but hiding behind their lines sheltering among their own civilians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In modern warfare, the enemy hides behind civiliansIn most warfare, in most times, the enemy hides behind civilians.The enemy isn't the soldiers in the field;The enemy is the man giving the orders and the political directives and that enemy is almost never on the field of battle but hiding behind their lines sheltering among their own civilians.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903737</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256730360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general?</p></div><p>My grandmother, rest her soul, was convinced we were descendants of Robert E Lee (her maiden name was Lee, so really there's no need for lineage tracing or genetic evidence<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  So as a probably-not representative of great great great uncle bob, I'd answer they like virtually killing innocent civilians for complicated reasons, normal human perverseness for one, lack of a moral objection since obvously it isn't real, dramatically reduced consequences from real life, curiosity, humor.  And I'd agree, there is just something about taking life that appeals to people on a primitive level.  How many of us killed ants with magnifying glasses as kids?  Maybe it comes from a fascination with death, trying to come to terms with it.</p><p>Some is just the curiosity.  Obviously most of us are never going to murder someone in cold blood.  One of the only ways we can know how that feels is through simulation.  Judging from murdering innocent people in Fallout 3, I'd never be able to stomach it, which I of course would have guessed.  On rare occasions I have had nightmares in which I think I have killed someone.  The actual murder is not part of the dream sequence, it's just as the scene starts I realize I murdered someone and feel horribly guilty about it.  Those nightmares started a long time before Fallout 3 or any videogames for me, BTW.  The only way I can intentionally "sample" that guilt is through videogames.  Well, I guess there's another way, but again, not going to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So here is what I think Lee might ask today : why do people take pleasure in pretending ( virtually ) to kill innocent civilians ?
Or kill in general ? My grandmother , rest her soul , was convinced we were descendants of Robert E Lee ( her maiden name was Lee , so really there 's no need for lineage tracing or genetic evidence ; - ) So as a probably-not representative of great great great uncle bob , I 'd answer they like virtually killing innocent civilians for complicated reasons , normal human perverseness for one , lack of a moral objection since obvously it is n't real , dramatically reduced consequences from real life , curiosity , humor .
And I 'd agree , there is just something about taking life that appeals to people on a primitive level .
How many of us killed ants with magnifying glasses as kids ?
Maybe it comes from a fascination with death , trying to come to terms with it.Some is just the curiosity .
Obviously most of us are never going to murder someone in cold blood .
One of the only ways we can know how that feels is through simulation .
Judging from murdering innocent people in Fallout 3 , I 'd never be able to stomach it , which I of course would have guessed .
On rare occasions I have had nightmares in which I think I have killed someone .
The actual murder is not part of the dream sequence , it 's just as the scene starts I realize I murdered someone and feel horribly guilty about it .
Those nightmares started a long time before Fallout 3 or any videogames for me , BTW .
The only way I can intentionally " sample " that guilt is through videogames .
Well , I guess there 's another way , but again , not going to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians?
Or kill in general?My grandmother, rest her soul, was convinced we were descendants of Robert E Lee (her maiden name was Lee, so really there's no need for lineage tracing or genetic evidence ;-)  So as a probably-not representative of great great great uncle bob, I'd answer they like virtually killing innocent civilians for complicated reasons, normal human perverseness for one, lack of a moral objection since obvously it isn't real, dramatically reduced consequences from real life, curiosity, humor.
And I'd agree, there is just something about taking life that appeals to people on a primitive level.
How many of us killed ants with magnifying glasses as kids?
Maybe it comes from a fascination with death, trying to come to terms with it.Some is just the curiosity.
Obviously most of us are never going to murder someone in cold blood.
One of the only ways we can know how that feels is through simulation.
Judging from murdering innocent people in Fallout 3, I'd never be able to stomach it, which I of course would have guessed.
On rare occasions I have had nightmares in which I think I have killed someone.
The actual murder is not part of the dream sequence, it's just as the scene starts I realize I murdered someone and feel horribly guilty about it.
Those nightmares started a long time before Fallout 3 or any videogames for me, BTW.
The only way I can intentionally "sample" that guilt is through videogames.
Well, I guess there's another way, but again, not going to do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900305</id>
	<title>Re:Good name</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1256757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civilians</i></p><p>The "media" is hardly involved.  These are game journalism sites, written by guys in their pajamas who are paid in schwag.  The vast majority of people who consider themselves gamers don't even read these things.</p><p><i>they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio,</i></p><p>Right, I was just thinking how if we all got our news from Michelle Malkin and the Huffington Post, modern life would be so much better.</p><p><i>it would solve most of societies ills.</i></p><p>Will it make us better spellers?  Then, sign me up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how the media can be " outraged " about killing civiliansThe " media " is hardly involved .
These are game journalism sites , written by guys in their pajamas who are paid in schwag .
The vast majority of people who consider themselves gamers do n't even read these things.they should just shut down every corporate owned " news " studio,Right , I was just thinking how if we all got our news from Michelle Malkin and the Huffington Post , modern life would be so much better.it would solve most of societies ills.Will it make us better spellers ?
Then , sign me up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civiliansThe "media" is hardly involved.
These are game journalism sites, written by guys in their pajamas who are paid in schwag.
The vast majority of people who consider themselves gamers don't even read these things.they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio,Right, I was just thinking how if we all got our news from Michelle Malkin and the Huffington Post, modern life would be so much better.it would solve most of societies ills.Will it make us better spellers?
Then, sign me up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900567</id>
	<title>Re:OK, new policy.</title>
	<author>electricbern</author>
	<datestamp>1256758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not trying to troll here but usually the ones that are complaining the most about the games that involves killing civilians are the ones that are most proud of the real wars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not trying to troll here but usually the ones that are complaining the most about the games that involves killing civilians are the ones that are most proud of the real wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not trying to troll here but usually the ones that are complaining the most about the games that involves killing civilians are the ones that are most proud of the real wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904881</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1256737260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people who understand war support going to war for some causes, defense of your freedom being a very good one. But whatever the current motive for the war in Afghanistan is, very few people would consider it an adequate motive for war if they know what war is actually like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people who understand war support going to war for some causes , defense of your freedom being a very good one .
But whatever the current motive for the war in Afghanistan is , very few people would consider it an adequate motive for war if they know what war is actually like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people who understand war support going to war for some causes, defense of your freedom being a very good one.
But whatever the current motive for the war in Afghanistan is, very few people would consider it an adequate motive for war if they know what war is actually like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901139</id>
	<title>Re:Slaughtering the innocent?</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1256760540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You must be too young to remember Pong. For hours two people beat that square to a bloody pulp, taking turns raping the square and throwing the innocent square from one side of the screen to the other. You couldn't see the actions too well because the whole square was... well.... one big pixel, and the blood showed up white because the system only had two colors: black and white... and the "bleep - bloop" sounds were actually screams of agony reproduced by a system that was only capable of producing simple bleeps and bloops.
</p><p>
It may have seemed innocent fun, but we all know what was really going on. It was a sign of things to come!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be too young to remember Pong .
For hours two people beat that square to a bloody pulp , taking turns raping the square and throwing the innocent square from one side of the screen to the other .
You could n't see the actions too well because the whole square was... well.... one big pixel , and the blood showed up white because the system only had two colors : black and white... and the " bleep - bloop " sounds were actually screams of agony reproduced by a system that was only capable of producing simple bleeps and bloops .
It may have seemed innocent fun , but we all know what was really going on .
It was a sign of things to come !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You must be too young to remember Pong.
For hours two people beat that square to a bloody pulp, taking turns raping the square and throwing the innocent square from one side of the screen to the other.
You couldn't see the actions too well because the whole square was... well.... one big pixel, and the blood showed up white because the system only had two colors: black and white... and the "bleep - bloop" sounds were actually screams of agony reproduced by a system that was only capable of producing simple bleeps and bloops.
It may have seemed innocent fun, but we all know what was really going on.
It was a sign of things to come!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902411</id>
	<title>Fantasy vs Reality</title>
	<author>ZirbMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1256723220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people have a problem with their fantasy games seem too much like reality.</p><p>Warning: Reality may not be suitable for younger children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people have a problem with their fantasy games seem too much like reality.Warning : Reality may not be suitable for younger children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people have a problem with their fantasy games seem too much like reality.Warning: Reality may not be suitable for younger children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903101</id>
	<title>Just a game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously people need to get thicker skin, its not like a soldier overseas can say this isn't right don't let it happen.  For the most part its just a game.  It has a rating system MA.  If you have a 5 year old playing it then it is definately your fault.  What is the difference between Modern Warfare, taking you into the minds of terrorists (which I think is pretty cool) for only one level, and GTA4 which lets kill all the innocent people you want for as long as you want.  Even playing the game makes you do bad stuff.  How much controversy was put on that?  Slim to none.  The game is meant for entertainment, not the spur of communism. Quit making it out that way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously people need to get thicker skin , its not like a soldier overseas can say this is n't right do n't let it happen .
For the most part its just a game .
It has a rating system MA .
If you have a 5 year old playing it then it is definately your fault .
What is the difference between Modern Warfare , taking you into the minds of terrorists ( which I think is pretty cool ) for only one level , and GTA4 which lets kill all the innocent people you want for as long as you want .
Even playing the game makes you do bad stuff .
How much controversy was put on that ?
Slim to none .
The game is meant for entertainment , not the spur of communism .
Quit making it out that way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously people need to get thicker skin, its not like a soldier overseas can say this isn't right don't let it happen.
For the most part its just a game.
It has a rating system MA.
If you have a 5 year old playing it then it is definately your fault.
What is the difference between Modern Warfare, taking you into the minds of terrorists (which I think is pretty cool) for only one level, and GTA4 which lets kill all the innocent people you want for as long as you want.
Even playing the game makes you do bad stuff.
How much controversy was put on that?
Slim to none.
The game is meant for entertainment, not the spur of communism.
Quit making it out that way!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900371</id>
	<title>Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>Zibblsnrt</author>
	<datestamp>1256757360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?</i></p><p>If news coverage of it's saying one thing - that the player's gunning down civilians - and the company producing the game is saying another - that it's effectively an interactive cutscene whose point is to say that These Guys Are Bad - I'm inclined to give Activision the benefit of the doubt, even if they're still deep in the failure mines with other aspects of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which one is it ( or is it both somehow ) ? If news coverage of it 's saying one thing - that the player 's gunning down civilians - and the company producing the game is saying another - that it 's effectively an interactive cutscene whose point is to say that These Guys Are Bad - I 'm inclined to give Activision the benefit of the doubt , even if they 're still deep in the failure mines with other aspects of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?If news coverage of it's saying one thing - that the player's gunning down civilians - and the company producing the game is saying another - that it's effectively an interactive cutscene whose point is to say that These Guys Are Bad - I'm inclined to give Activision the benefit of the doubt, even if they're still deep in the failure mines with other aspects of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900409</id>
	<title>More Realistic IMHO</title>
	<author>realsilly</author>
	<datestamp>1256757480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reality is that civilians do die in warfare.  Our military must often weigh the decision of the number of casualties that will be part of a cleanup?  In modern warfare, the enemy hides behind civilians, so why not make games more towards what happens in reality.</p><p>Besides, how many game that aren't warfare game hurt or kill people who are innocent.  Every game out there from World of Warcraft through Jet Moto, through Grand Theft Auto.  The only reason, I suspect, that people are bent out of shape about this, is because it's a realistic looking game.  You can see simulated faces of people in pain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that civilians do die in warfare .
Our military must often weigh the decision of the number of casualties that will be part of a cleanup ?
In modern warfare , the enemy hides behind civilians , so why not make games more towards what happens in reality.Besides , how many game that are n't warfare game hurt or kill people who are innocent .
Every game out there from World of Warcraft through Jet Moto , through Grand Theft Auto .
The only reason , I suspect , that people are bent out of shape about this , is because it 's a realistic looking game .
You can see simulated faces of people in pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that civilians do die in warfare.
Our military must often weigh the decision of the number of casualties that will be part of a cleanup?
In modern warfare, the enemy hides behind civilians, so why not make games more towards what happens in reality.Besides, how many game that aren't warfare game hurt or kill people who are innocent.
Every game out there from World of Warcraft through Jet Moto, through Grand Theft Auto.
The only reason, I suspect, that people are bent out of shape about this, is because it's a realistic looking game.
You can see simulated faces of people in pain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903523</id>
	<title>Re:OK, new policy.</title>
	<author>caitsith01</author>
	<datestamp>1256728980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Anybody</i> who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list.</p></div><p>I take your point, but whereas "real wars" are (hopefully) at the most extreme end of the spectrum in terms of their justification/necessity, fucking <i>video games</i> are <i>entertainment</i>.  It says one thing about a society which accepts some civilian deaths in what is perceived to be a just and necessary war (and I note that once that perception drops away wars tend to become pretty fucking unpopular) but it says something entirely different about a society which creates and participates in a simulation of the same for <i>fun</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list.I take your point , but whereas " real wars " are ( hopefully ) at the most extreme end of the spectrum in terms of their justification/necessity , fucking video games are entertainment .
It says one thing about a society which accepts some civilian deaths in what is perceived to be a just and necessary war ( and I note that once that perception drops away wars tend to become pretty fucking unpopular ) but it says something entirely different about a society which creates and participates in a simulation of the same for fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Anybody who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list.I take your point, but whereas "real wars" are (hopefully) at the most extreme end of the spectrum in terms of their justification/necessity, fucking video games are entertainment.
It says one thing about a society which accepts some civilian deaths in what is perceived to be a just and necessary war (and I note that once that perception drops away wars tend to become pretty fucking unpopular) but it says something entirely different about a society which creates and participates in a simulation of the same for fun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903287</id>
	<title>Re:Modern Warfare</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1256727780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to Burning1's insightful post, your sarcasm is not only misplaced but also wrong. On the whole, it was better not to kill the conquered population. More profitable to enslave them or tax them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to Burning1 's insightful post , your sarcasm is not only misplaced but also wrong .
On the whole , it was better not to kill the conquered population .
More profitable to enslave them or tax them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to Burning1's insightful post, your sarcasm is not only misplaced but also wrong.
On the whole, it was better not to kill the conquered population.
More profitable to enslave them or tax them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29907519</id>
	<title>Re:Probably intentional.</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1256848200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For christ's sake, it's a game! You aren't killing anyone</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For christ 's sake , it 's a game !
You are n't killing anyone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For christ's sake, it's a game!
You aren't killing anyone
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905565</id>
	<title>Re:Content Warning...</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1256742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude.... if someone had warned me on COD4:MW about the nuclear explosion, it would totally have killed the shock factor.  That scene was so jawdropping!</p><p>I see what you mean.<br>-----------</p><p>In a game based on warfare, I find it hard to think that anything specific should be considered 'disturbing'.   The whole thing is!  That's war. I mean, nevermind the fact that you spend the whole time shooting people...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.people with families.... people that feel their cause is just...  people.</p><p>I agree.  Rate it M and leave it at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude.... if someone had warned me on COD4 : MW about the nuclear explosion , it would totally have killed the shock factor .
That scene was so jawdropping ! I see what you mean.-----------In a game based on warfare , I find it hard to think that anything specific should be considered 'disturbing' .
The whole thing is !
That 's war .
I mean , nevermind the fact that you spend the whole time shooting people... .people with families.... people that feel their cause is just... people.I agree .
Rate it M and leave it at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude.... if someone had warned me on COD4:MW about the nuclear explosion, it would totally have killed the shock factor.
That scene was so jawdropping!I see what you mean.-----------In a game based on warfare, I find it hard to think that anything specific should be considered 'disturbing'.
The whole thing is!
That's war.
I mean, nevermind the fact that you spend the whole time shooting people... .people with families.... people that feel their cause is just...  people.I agree.
Rate it M and leave it at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900419</id>
	<title>Oh noes!</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1256757480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope no one tells them about <a href="http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/" title="introversion.co.uk">DEFCON</a> [introversion.co.uk]. You can kill billions of civilians in that game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope no one tells them about DEFCON [ introversion.co.uk ] .
You can kill billions of civilians in that game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope no one tells them about DEFCON [introversion.co.uk].
You can kill billions of civilians in that game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904613</id>
	<title>Re:Content Warning...</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256735880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that MW and MW2 will have (and I want!) an M rating, most of that is because you're spewing lead at high velocities in a semi-realistic manner.  Most of us know we signed on for that when we bought the game.  If there's an option to skip JUST the things that most excite our urge to retch, I'd be glad for it -- but appreciate not having to restart an entire campaign if I decide something was too much (or too little).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that MW and MW2 will have ( and I want !
) an M rating , most of that is because you 're spewing lead at high velocities in a semi-realistic manner .
Most of us know we signed on for that when we bought the game .
If there 's an option to skip JUST the things that most excite our urge to retch , I 'd be glad for it -- but appreciate not having to restart an entire campaign if I decide something was too much ( or too little ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that MW and MW2 will have (and I want!
) an M rating, most of that is because you're spewing lead at high velocities in a semi-realistic manner.
Most of us know we signed on for that when we bought the game.
If there's an option to skip JUST the things that most excite our urge to retch, I'd be glad for it -- but appreciate not having to restart an entire campaign if I decide something was too much (or too little).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902007</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>Zarrot</author>
	<datestamp>1256721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...been there and done that with Sam Fisher.  This particular concept (killing innocents to protect ones cover) was what Splinter Cell:Double Agent was all about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...been there and done that with Sam Fisher .
This particular concept ( killing innocents to protect ones cover ) was what Splinter Cell : Double Agent was all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...been there and done that with Sam Fisher.
This particular concept (killing innocents to protect ones cover) was what Splinter Cell:Double Agent was all about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900051</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>kylemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1256755980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death\_Race\_(1976\_game)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Death Race</a> [wikipedia.org] got there first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Death Race [ wikipedia.org ] got there first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Death Race [wikipedia.org] got there first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29908245</id>
	<title>Re:Content Warning...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256817060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, I found COD4 one of the best FPS I have ever played, and partly because of its realism. Apart from the fact that you recharge your health (?) the game was wholly quite realistic, especially in that one of the main characters dies, in the scene you describe. I might add I was thoroughly disturbed by that scene (so I am not a desensitised monster, despite playing war games most of my adolescent and adult life).</p><p>Other little things in the game lets you decide what is the best course of action; take the scene in the village where the Ultranationalists are harassing the old man. If you wait long enough they will execute him (which from what I recall is what the captain advises you to do) or you can intervene and shoot the guy holding the gun to his head, and the old man has a chance to run off. Things like this, I think, makes the game live up to its title.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I found COD4 one of the best FPS I have ever played , and partly because of its realism .
Apart from the fact that you recharge your health ( ?
) the game was wholly quite realistic , especially in that one of the main characters dies , in the scene you describe .
I might add I was thoroughly disturbed by that scene ( so I am not a desensitised monster , despite playing war games most of my adolescent and adult life ) .Other little things in the game lets you decide what is the best course of action ; take the scene in the village where the Ultranationalists are harassing the old man .
If you wait long enough they will execute him ( which from what I recall is what the captain advises you to do ) or you can intervene and shoot the guy holding the gun to his head , and the old man has a chance to run off .
Things like this , I think , makes the game live up to its title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I found COD4 one of the best FPS I have ever played, and partly because of its realism.
Apart from the fact that you recharge your health (?
) the game was wholly quite realistic, especially in that one of the main characters dies, in the scene you describe.
I might add I was thoroughly disturbed by that scene (so I am not a desensitised monster, despite playing war games most of my adolescent and adult life).Other little things in the game lets you decide what is the best course of action; take the scene in the village where the Ultranationalists are harassing the old man.
If you wait long enough they will execute him (which from what I recall is what the captain advises you to do) or you can intervene and shoot the guy holding the gun to his head, and the old man has a chance to run off.
Things like this, I think, makes the game live up to its title.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953</id>
	<title>Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrorists mix in amongst civilians and some say even use them as shields, and a military response never has pinpoint accuracy despite the best technology.</p><p>This is happening all over the world in modern warfare.</p><p>The weirdly sanitized worlds of war games causes me more outrage. If real war is hell, why cant games have elements of that?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists mix in amongst civilians and some say even use them as shields , and a military response never has pinpoint accuracy despite the best technology.This is happening all over the world in modern warfare.The weirdly sanitized worlds of war games causes me more outrage .
If real war is hell , why cant games have elements of that ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists mix in amongst civilians and some say even use them as shields, and a military response never has pinpoint accuracy despite the best technology.This is happening all over the world in modern warfare.The weirdly sanitized worlds of war games causes me more outrage.
If real war is hell, why cant games have elements of that?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901245</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>socrplayr813</author>
	<datestamp>1256761020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody else remember the original Tom Clancy games?  You had to plan your route and actions, then execute your plan, carefully shooting around civilians to get to the bad guys.  Those civilians died all the time and nobody batted an eye (that I remember).  Sure, this is a bit different in that you're specifically being told to shoot them, but civilians are dying either way.  These things are commonplace in movies and books, but because games are interactive (and new-ish), it's a big(ger) deal.</p><p>I'm sure every new medium goes through these types of growing pains, but I really can't wait for us to get past this one.  I want my interactive stories and I want them to be every bit as mature and thought-provoking as books and movies can be.  Stop dumbing down my entertainment for the idiot parents that don't bother to interact with and monitor their kids.  And parents, at least read the game box before shelling out $50-60 for your 10-year-old to shoot people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody else remember the original Tom Clancy games ?
You had to plan your route and actions , then execute your plan , carefully shooting around civilians to get to the bad guys .
Those civilians died all the time and nobody batted an eye ( that I remember ) .
Sure , this is a bit different in that you 're specifically being told to shoot them , but civilians are dying either way .
These things are commonplace in movies and books , but because games are interactive ( and new-ish ) , it 's a big ( ger ) deal.I 'm sure every new medium goes through these types of growing pains , but I really ca n't wait for us to get past this one .
I want my interactive stories and I want them to be every bit as mature and thought-provoking as books and movies can be .
Stop dumbing down my entertainment for the idiot parents that do n't bother to interact with and monitor their kids .
And parents , at least read the game box before shelling out $ 50-60 for your 10-year-old to shoot people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody else remember the original Tom Clancy games?
You had to plan your route and actions, then execute your plan, carefully shooting around civilians to get to the bad guys.
Those civilians died all the time and nobody batted an eye (that I remember).
Sure, this is a bit different in that you're specifically being told to shoot them, but civilians are dying either way.
These things are commonplace in movies and books, but because games are interactive (and new-ish), it's a big(ger) deal.I'm sure every new medium goes through these types of growing pains, but I really can't wait for us to get past this one.
I want my interactive stories and I want them to be every bit as mature and thought-provoking as books and movies can be.
Stop dumbing down my entertainment for the idiot parents that don't bother to interact with and monitor their kids.
And parents, at least read the game box before shelling out $50-60 for your 10-year-old to shoot people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903245</id>
	<title>From one of my favorite bumper-stickers</title>
	<author>Zibben</author>
	<datestamp>1256727540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Protect the easily offended, Ban Everything!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Protect the easily offended , Ban Everything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protect the easily offended, Ban Everything!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901911</id>
	<title>Seriously now..</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1256720820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as there isn't an <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Emotion\_chip" title="memory-alpha.org" rel="nofollow">Emotion Chip</a> [memory-alpha.org] implanted in each of the virtual civilians, I think we're ok on this one.<br>  <br> 
But seriously, this is probably just Activision's way of showing you what will happen to you if you don't stay home and play Call of Duty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as there is n't an Emotion Chip [ memory-alpha.org ] implanted in each of the virtual civilians , I think we 're ok on this one .
But seriously , this is probably just Activision 's way of showing you what will happen to you if you do n't stay home and play Call of Duty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as there isn't an Emotion Chip [memory-alpha.org] implanted in each of the virtual civilians, I think we're ok on this one.
But seriously, this is probably just Activision's way of showing you what will happen to you if you don't stay home and play Call of Duty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it's too close to the truth for people to be comfortable with it<br> <br>People want the sugar coated war they see on TV. Very few people would support the war if they knew what it actually meant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's too close to the truth for people to be comfortable with it People want the sugar coated war they see on TV .
Very few people would support the war if they knew what it actually meant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's too close to the truth for people to be comfortable with it People want the sugar coated war they see on TV.
Very few people would support the war if they knew what it actually meant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904325</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1256734020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death\_Race\_(1976\_game)" title="wikipedia.org">Death Race</a> [wikipedia.org] got there first.</p></div><p>And <a href="http://www.gb64.com/game.php?id=7161" title="gb64.com">Speed Racer</a> [gb64.com] (no relation to the guy who drove the Mach 5) for the C64 followed. It had several different ways of keeping score, including Horns and Halos. You got a Halo for every pedestrian you passed without harming, and a Horn for every pedestrian turned into a red splat on the street (with an appropriate approximation of a wet "splat" sound). As I recall, possible victims include a businessman, a child, a dog, and an old woman with a walker.</p><p>

But it wasn't popular, so no one cared.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Death Race [ wikipedia.org ] got there first.And Speed Racer [ gb64.com ] ( no relation to the guy who drove the Mach 5 ) for the C64 followed .
It had several different ways of keeping score , including Horns and Halos .
You got a Halo for every pedestrian you passed without harming , and a Horn for every pedestrian turned into a red splat on the street ( with an appropriate approximation of a wet " splat " sound ) .
As I recall , possible victims include a businessman , a child , a dog , and an old woman with a walker .
But it was n't popular , so no one cared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Death Race [wikipedia.org] got there first.And Speed Racer [gb64.com] (no relation to the guy who drove the Mach 5) for the C64 followed.
It had several different ways of keeping score, including Horns and Halos.
You got a Halo for every pedestrian you passed without harming, and a Horn for every pedestrian turned into a red splat on the street (with an appropriate approximation of a wet "splat" sound).
As I recall, possible victims include a businessman, a child, a dog, and an old woman with a walker.
But it wasn't popular, so no one cared.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901753</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>dyingtolive</author>
	<datestamp>1256763360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people, who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them, also the player (Alex Mercer) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there?</p></div><p>Yeah, it's a shame the game was buggy as hell.  The problem with this is that it isn't believable. The average person's ability to cope with violence only exists in as so far as it is possible to believe it could be real. You might almost say that violence itself isn't really so horrible as the credible threat and expectation of violence.  Terrorists attacking an airport could be something that you might hear about in the news, so it's BAD.*<br> <br> <br> <br>
* BAD as defined by the journalistic moral police of America.  Bad in the sense that it is bad for their business.  They seem to believe they're the only ones with carte blanche to fabricate horror for personal profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people , who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them , also the player ( Alex Mercer ) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there ? Yeah , it 's a shame the game was buggy as hell .
The problem with this is that it is n't believable .
The average person 's ability to cope with violence only exists in as so far as it is possible to believe it could be real .
You might almost say that violence itself is n't really so horrible as the credible threat and expectation of violence .
Terrorists attacking an airport could be something that you might hear about in the news , so it 's BAD .
* * BAD as defined by the journalistic moral police of America .
Bad in the sense that it is bad for their business .
They seem to believe they 're the only ones with carte blanche to fabricate horror for personal profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people, who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them, also the player (Alex Mercer) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there?Yeah, it's a shame the game was buggy as hell.
The problem with this is that it isn't believable.
The average person's ability to cope with violence only exists in as so far as it is possible to believe it could be real.
You might almost say that violence itself isn't really so horrible as the credible threat and expectation of violence.
Terrorists attacking an airport could be something that you might hear about in the news, so it's BAD.
*   
* BAD as defined by the journalistic moral police of America.
Bad in the sense that it is bad for their business.
They seem to believe they're the only ones with carte blanche to fabricate horror for personal profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901843</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256720580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because we don't need a nation full shell shocked kids and adults with PTSD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we do n't need a nation full shell shocked kids and adults with PTSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we don't need a nation full shell shocked kids and adults with PTSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29907663</id>
	<title>I wonder, when a game will include Frank Wuterich.</title>
	<author>blue-slonopotam</author>
	<datestamp>1256807760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder, when a game will include Frank Wuterich.

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

or any other of the kind...

I bet it would not sell well in the US.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder , when a game will include Frank Wuterich .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank \ _Wuterich [ wikipedia.org ] or any other of the kind.. . I bet it would not sell well in the US .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder, when a game will include Frank Wuterich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank\_Wuterich [wikipedia.org]

or any other of the kind...

I bet it would not sell well in the US.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903039</id>
	<title>Outrage?  What outrage?</title>
	<author>pluther</author>
	<datestamp>1256726640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Following the links and reading the comments, so far I've seen reporting that there is outrage.</p><p>I've seen comments saying they can see how this might cause outrage.</p><p>I've seen speculation in articles and comments that "some" might be offended.</p><p>What I've yet to see anywhere is any actual expression of outrage.</p><p>Whoever from the company told the game news and reviews sites that there is outrage going on and that they should report on it deserves a really big raise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following the links and reading the comments , so far I 've seen reporting that there is outrage.I 've seen comments saying they can see how this might cause outrage.I 've seen speculation in articles and comments that " some " might be offended.What I 've yet to see anywhere is any actual expression of outrage.Whoever from the company told the game news and reviews sites that there is outrage going on and that they should report on it deserves a really big raise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following the links and reading the comments, so far I've seen reporting that there is outrage.I've seen comments saying they can see how this might cause outrage.I've seen speculation in articles and comments that "some" might be offended.What I've yet to see anywhere is any actual expression of outrage.Whoever from the company told the game news and reviews sites that there is outrage going on and that they should report on it deserves a really big raise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900217</id>
	<title>Not the first game.</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1256756640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the first Modern Warfare, when the president is being driven to his execution you see civilians being lined up against a wall and then executed. How is this different? Because they're in a hostage situation? People need to STFU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the first Modern Warfare , when the president is being driven to his execution you see civilians being lined up against a wall and then executed .
How is this different ?
Because they 're in a hostage situation ?
People need to STFU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the first Modern Warfare, when the president is being driven to his execution you see civilians being lined up against a wall and then executed.
How is this different?
Because they're in a hostage situation?
People need to STFU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902213</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1256722260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general? Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?"</p><p>I think he'd be struck by cognitive dissonance.  The existence of our society where relatively few people have ACTUALLY been involved with violence is unprecedented.  In earlier times, children knew exactly what death looked like - the boys hunted and the girls helped slaughter the chickens (note the same can be said of sex as well - no one needs to tell a farm kid about the birds and the bees when there's the pigs and sheep doin' it right there).  So the idea that there are people who have made it to adulthood without seeing anything killed in real life (other than bugs) would be inconceivable.  So I imagine the idea of those same people looking at *simulated* death would be just as foreign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So here is what I think Lee might ask today : why do people take pleasure in pretending ( virtually ) to kill innocent civilians ?
Or kill in general ?
Or eat people , as someone mentioned in Prototype ( never played it ) ?
" I think he 'd be struck by cognitive dissonance .
The existence of our society where relatively few people have ACTUALLY been involved with violence is unprecedented .
In earlier times , children knew exactly what death looked like - the boys hunted and the girls helped slaughter the chickens ( note the same can be said of sex as well - no one needs to tell a farm kid about the birds and the bees when there 's the pigs and sheep doin ' it right there ) .
So the idea that there are people who have made it to adulthood without seeing anything killed in real life ( other than bugs ) would be inconceivable .
So I imagine the idea of those same people looking at * simulated * death would be just as foreign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians?
Or kill in general?
Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?
"I think he'd be struck by cognitive dissonance.
The existence of our society where relatively few people have ACTUALLY been involved with violence is unprecedented.
In earlier times, children knew exactly what death looked like - the boys hunted and the girls helped slaughter the chickens (note the same can be said of sex as well - no one needs to tell a farm kid about the birds and the bees when there's the pigs and sheep doin' it right there).
So the idea that there are people who have made it to adulthood without seeing anything killed in real life (other than bugs) would be inconceivable.
So I imagine the idea of those same people looking at *simulated* death would be just as foreign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901125</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>Princeofcups</author>
	<datestamp>1256760480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the words of Robert E. Lee:</p><blockquote><div><p>It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>What?  That's the opposite of what you want to hear.  R. E. Lee is saying that he enjoys battle, the excitement of leading his troops to their potential deaths.  It's great.  Everyone should do it!  Oh wait, there's dead bodies.  I guess we shouldn't do this too much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the words of Robert E. Lee : It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.What ?
That 's the opposite of what you want to hear .
R. E. Lee is saying that he enjoys battle , the excitement of leading his troops to their potential deaths .
It 's great .
Everyone should do it !
Oh wait , there 's dead bodies .
I guess we should n't do this too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the words of Robert E. Lee:It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.What?
That's the opposite of what you want to hear.
R. E. Lee is saying that he enjoys battle, the excitement of leading his troops to their potential deaths.
It's great.
Everyone should do it!
Oh wait, there's dead bodies.
I guess we shouldn't do this too much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good quote.</p><p>So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in <i>pretending</i> (virtually) to kill innocent civilians?  Or kill in general?  Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?</p><p>I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games, that playing violent video games causes you to murder, etc.  My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?</p><p>Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good.  What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her.  One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?</p><p>I think that's where the shock at these video games comes into play.  The idea that "normal" people have a desire to pretend to be a terrorist killing innocent civilians is frightening.  However, because of a worldview - that is, that people are "neutral" or clean slates and develop morality from there - people think that society should squash these video games in an effort to prevent people from being wired to be terrorists or murderers.</p><p>In my worldview, people are bad to begin with.  Wanting to play these games is an outworking of who they are, not part of what forms who they are.  It may or may not condition them to be less influenced by social constructs and likely helps, as the Christians say, "sear their conscience"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but IMO, games like these prove one thing to me: that people inherently seem to like violence and war, and that simply shows humanity who they really are.  It's not the fault of video games that people like violence; it's the fault of people liking violence that we have video game violence.</p><p>So it seems like the response should be this: <i>wow, human nature is pretty violent.  What should we do?</i> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good quote.So here is what I think Lee might ask today : why do people take pleasure in pretending ( virtually ) to kill innocent civilians ?
Or kill in general ?
Or eat people , as someone mentioned in Prototype ( never played it ) ? I 'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games , that playing violent video games causes you to murder , etc .
My question is this : why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us ? Example : most people do n't think that brutally raping a young girl ( say , 8 years old ) and then slaughtering her is particularly good .
What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her .
One is doing it in real life , one is doing it virtually ; both in order to do it virtually , there must be some desire to " do it , " right ? I think that 's where the shock at these video games comes into play .
The idea that " normal " people have a desire to pretend to be a terrorist killing innocent civilians is frightening .
However , because of a worldview - that is , that people are " neutral " or clean slates and develop morality from there - people think that society should squash these video games in an effort to prevent people from being wired to be terrorists or murderers.In my worldview , people are bad to begin with .
Wanting to play these games is an outworking of who they are , not part of what forms who they are .
It may or may not condition them to be less influenced by social constructs and likely helps , as the Christians say , " sear their conscience " ... but IMO , games like these prove one thing to me : that people inherently seem to like violence and war , and that simply shows humanity who they really are .
It 's not the fault of video games that people like violence ; it 's the fault of people liking violence that we have video game violence.So it seems like the response should be this : wow , human nature is pretty violent .
What should we do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good quote.So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians?
Or kill in general?
Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games, that playing violent video games causes you to murder, etc.
My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good.
What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her.
One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?I think that's where the shock at these video games comes into play.
The idea that "normal" people have a desire to pretend to be a terrorist killing innocent civilians is frightening.
However, because of a worldview - that is, that people are "neutral" or clean slates and develop morality from there - people think that society should squash these video games in an effort to prevent people from being wired to be terrorists or murderers.In my worldview, people are bad to begin with.
Wanting to play these games is an outworking of who they are, not part of what forms who they are.
It may or may not condition them to be less influenced by social constructs and likely helps, as the Christians say, "sear their conscience" ... but IMO, games like these prove one thing to me: that people inherently seem to like violence and war, and that simply shows humanity who they really are.
It's not the fault of video games that people like violence; it's the fault of people liking violence that we have video game violence.So it seems like the response should be this: wow, human nature is pretty violent.
What should we do? 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29908297</id>
	<title>Stop the PC BS</title>
	<author>yourtallness</author>
	<datestamp>1256817720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 to games offering the opportunity to explore boundaries we would not dare or want to in real life.

Am I the only one that had a blast killing scientists in Half-life, or Mudokons in Abe's Odyssey in every way imaginable?
Wasn't the kill-ability of NPC in HL one of the coolest aspects?
And was I the only one who thought the twist of the USMC soldiers being bad guys in HL was immensely intriguing?

I for one would be most interested in playing a game where you get to be a black ops operative, silencing witnesses and going to extreme lengths to cover up a conspiracy.
The game could have a tragic ending with the player realizing the error of their ways, going rogue, or something like that, to somewhat balance out the evil done in the first part.

In real life, eggs get broken to make an omelet, the good guys and non-combatants take casualties, there is friendly fire, and hostage-takers do execute hostages.

So vote with your currency, whine all you want, but let games and movies stay free of politically correct BS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 to games offering the opportunity to explore boundaries we would not dare or want to in real life .
Am I the only one that had a blast killing scientists in Half-life , or Mudokons in Abe 's Odyssey in every way imaginable ?
Was n't the kill-ability of NPC in HL one of the coolest aspects ?
And was I the only one who thought the twist of the USMC soldiers being bad guys in HL was immensely intriguing ?
I for one would be most interested in playing a game where you get to be a black ops operative , silencing witnesses and going to extreme lengths to cover up a conspiracy .
The game could have a tragic ending with the player realizing the error of their ways , going rogue , or something like that , to somewhat balance out the evil done in the first part .
In real life , eggs get broken to make an omelet , the good guys and non-combatants take casualties , there is friendly fire , and hostage-takers do execute hostages .
So vote with your currency , whine all you want , but let games and movies stay free of politically correct BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 to games offering the opportunity to explore boundaries we would not dare or want to in real life.
Am I the only one that had a blast killing scientists in Half-life, or Mudokons in Abe's Odyssey in every way imaginable?
Wasn't the kill-ability of NPC in HL one of the coolest aspects?
And was I the only one who thought the twist of the USMC soldiers being bad guys in HL was immensely intriguing?
I for one would be most interested in playing a game where you get to be a black ops operative, silencing witnesses and going to extreme lengths to cover up a conspiracy.
The game could have a tragic ending with the player realizing the error of their ways, going rogue, or something like that, to somewhat balance out the evil done in the first part.
In real life, eggs get broken to make an omelet, the good guys and non-combatants take casualties, there is friendly fire, and hostage-takers do execute hostages.
So vote with your currency, whine all you want, but let games and movies stay free of politically correct BS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901203</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256760840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the player presumably becomes "numb" to the violence.</p></div><p>Yes, that generally is the presumption, and it has certainly been enthusiastically and mindlessly parroted by censorship advocates for many years. However, despite the insistence of the "think of the children" moral panic crowd, every actual scientific study on the subject has shown that this presumption has no basis in reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the player presumably becomes " numb " to the violence.Yes , that generally is the presumption , and it has certainly been enthusiastically and mindlessly parroted by censorship advocates for many years .
However , despite the insistence of the " think of the children " moral panic crowd , every actual scientific study on the subject has shown that this presumption has no basis in reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the player presumably becomes "numb" to the violence.Yes, that generally is the presumption, and it has certainly been enthusiastically and mindlessly parroted by censorship advocates for many years.
However, despite the insistence of the "think of the children" moral panic crowd, every actual scientific study on the subject has shown that this presumption has no basis in reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29913383</id>
	<title>Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>MasterNetHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256842500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attention crazy old people that don't play video games (i.e. no one on Slashdot), please read this and shut up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attention crazy old people that do n't play video games ( i.e .
no one on Slashdot ) , please read this and shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attention crazy old people that don't play video games (i.e.
no one on Slashdot), please read this and shut up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901021</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Kozar\_The\_Malignant</author>
	<datestamp>1256759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual event</p></div><p>Haven't been to Oakland lately, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual eventHave n't been to Oakland lately , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual eventHaven't been to Oakland lately, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900563</id>
	<title>Re:Good name</title>
	<author>tenco</author>
	<datestamp>1256757960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this a Troll? It's a valid point. Oh, yeah. The first thing that dies in war is truth. I forgot. Mea culpa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this a Troll ?
It 's a valid point .
Oh , yeah .
The first thing that dies in war is truth .
I forgot .
Mea culpa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this a Troll?
It's a valid point.
Oh, yeah.
The first thing that dies in war is truth.
I forgot.
Mea culpa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899959</id>
	<title>What makes this so outrageous?</title>
	<author>Fingerbob</author>
	<datestamp>1256755680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a game. it's not forcing, or even suggesting, that you should go out and perform this action for real.<br>Is this any more contentious than GTA ho-bouncing or pedestrian splatting?<br>It certainly makes me consider the moral aspects of performing those actions for real, but I highly doubt it will provoke me towards them (more likely it will make me less inclined to gun down civs at an airport in future).</p><p>Compared to the blood and gore of recent Hollywood fare like Saw, where's the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a game .
it 's not forcing , or even suggesting , that you should go out and perform this action for real.Is this any more contentious than GTA ho-bouncing or pedestrian splatting ? It certainly makes me consider the moral aspects of performing those actions for real , but I highly doubt it will provoke me towards them ( more likely it will make me less inclined to gun down civs at an airport in future ) .Compared to the blood and gore of recent Hollywood fare like Saw , where 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a game.
it's not forcing, or even suggesting, that you should go out and perform this action for real.Is this any more contentious than GTA ho-bouncing or pedestrian splatting?It certainly makes me consider the moral aspects of performing those actions for real, but I highly doubt it will provoke me towards them (more likely it will make me less inclined to gun down civs at an airport in future).Compared to the blood and gore of recent Hollywood fare like Saw, where's the problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900301</id>
	<title>Re:Modern Warfare</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we all know that the Romans and Greeks never slaughtered all the residents of a rebellious city upon taking it, and raped and enslaved the women who remained.  No, nothing like that happened in ancient times at all.  Combat was noble, and only men with weapons in their hands were killed, nobly and civilly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we all know that the Romans and Greeks never slaughtered all the residents of a rebellious city upon taking it , and raped and enslaved the women who remained .
No , nothing like that happened in ancient times at all .
Combat was noble , and only men with weapons in their hands were killed , nobly and civilly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we all know that the Romans and Greeks never slaughtered all the residents of a rebellious city upon taking it, and raped and enslaved the women who remained.
No, nothing like that happened in ancient times at all.
Combat was noble, and only men with weapons in their hands were killed, nobly and civilly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933</id>
	<title>Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

This stuff seems to be going down faster than it's getting replicated--indicating it probably is real footage.  As the submitter, there were a number of sites I was able to reach this morning that had a lot more footage and has apparently been taken down.  From CNN's iReport to China's 56.com and youku.com video hosting sites.  <br> <br>

For an official statement, <a href="http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/700280/Leaked-Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2-Footage-Features-Playable-Terrorists.html" title="g4tv.com">G4TV</a> [g4tv.com] quotes Activision (when asked about the footage being in the game) as saying:<p><div class="quote"><p>Yes it is. The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player&rsquo;s mission to stop them.<br> <br>

Players have the option of skipping over the scene. At the beginning of the game, there are two &lsquo;checkpoints&rsquo; where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can&rsquo;t be disabled.<br> <br>

Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older.</p></div><p>Sure to raise controversy, sure to garner eyeballs and sure to sell copies it looks like.  Just the right amount of controversy I guess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This stuff seems to be going down faster than it 's getting replicated--indicating it probably is real footage .
As the submitter , there were a number of sites I was able to reach this morning that had a lot more footage and has apparently been taken down .
From CNN 's iReport to China 's 56.com and youku.com video hosting sites .
For an official statement , G4TV [ g4tv.com ] quotes Activision ( when asked about the footage being in the game ) as saying : Yes it is .
The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit .
By establishing that evil , it adds to the urgency of the player    s mission to stop them .
Players have the option of skipping over the scene .
At the beginning of the game , there are two    checkpoints    where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing .
These checkpoints can    t be disabled .
Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense , realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts , much like epic , action movies .
It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes , which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older.Sure to raise controversy , sure to garner eyeballs and sure to sell copies it looks like .
Just the right amount of controversy I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

This stuff seems to be going down faster than it's getting replicated--indicating it probably is real footage.
As the submitter, there were a number of sites I was able to reach this morning that had a lot more footage and has apparently been taken down.
From CNN's iReport to China's 56.com and youku.com video hosting sites.
For an official statement, G4TV [g4tv.com] quotes Activision (when asked about the footage being in the game) as saying:Yes it is.
The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit.
By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them.
Players have the option of skipping over the scene.
At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing.
These checkpoints can’t be disabled.
Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies.
It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older.Sure to raise controversy, sure to garner eyeballs and sure to sell copies it looks like.
Just the right amount of controversy I guess.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904945</id>
	<title>Re:Original American Terrorists...</title>
	<author>Hybrid-brain</author>
	<datestamp>1256737620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd also like to point out Harper as well, or whatever his name is, the guy who raided the federal reserve to lead a slave revolt.   These people were doing the right thing...they just weren't seen as the good guys by all.  yaghoi</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd also like to point out Harper as well , or whatever his name is , the guy who raided the federal reserve to lead a slave revolt .
These people were doing the right thing...they just were n't seen as the good guys by all .
yaghoi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd also like to point out Harper as well, or whatever his name is, the guy who raided the federal reserve to lead a slave revolt.
These people were doing the right thing...they just weren't seen as the good guys by all.
yaghoi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904671</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>VocationalZero</author>
	<datestamp>1256736120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it seems like the response should be this: <i>wow, human nature is pretty violent. What should we do?</i></p> </div><p>I dont know about you, but I like to play a good FPS to blow off steam.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it seems like the response should be this : wow , human nature is pretty violent .
What should we do ?
I dont know about you , but I like to play a good FPS to blow off steam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it seems like the response should be this: wow, human nature is pretty violent.
What should we do?
I dont know about you, but I like to play a good FPS to blow off steam.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900143</id>
	<title>Re:OK, new policy.</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1256756340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>New</i> policy?  Ahh, youth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New policy ?
Ahh , youth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New policy?
Ahh, youth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900483</id>
	<title>Slaughtering the innocent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Innocent slaughter has been part of games from the beginning. I mean think of all the poor harmless asteroids which have been blown up over the years by a little wedge for the sole crime of moving in a straight line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Innocent slaughter has been part of games from the beginning .
I mean think of all the poor harmless asteroids which have been blown up over the years by a little wedge for the sole crime of moving in a straight line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innocent slaughter has been part of games from the beginning.
I mean think of all the poor harmless asteroids which have been blown up over the years by a little wedge for the sole crime of moving in a straight line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905707</id>
	<title>Wussies</title>
	<author>uncholowapo</author>
	<datestamp>1256743380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You guys are a bunch of Babies. This is why the game is rated Mature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys are a bunch of Babies .
This is why the game is rated Mature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys are a bunch of Babies.
This is why the game is rated Mature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900221</id>
	<title>Freedom Fighters?</title>
	<author>Conchobair</author>
	<datestamp>1256756700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those might not be "Terrorists", they could be "Freedom Fighters".  Those so-called innocent civilians very well could be part of the oppresive regime that is due for a change in the name of liberty and freedom.  Let's not rush to judgement until we find out if which side of this conflict is going to bow to Western authority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those might not be " Terrorists " , they could be " Freedom Fighters " .
Those so-called innocent civilians very well could be part of the oppresive regime that is due for a change in the name of liberty and freedom .
Let 's not rush to judgement until we find out if which side of this conflict is going to bow to Western authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those might not be "Terrorists", they could be "Freedom Fighters".
Those so-called innocent civilians very well could be part of the oppresive regime that is due for a change in the name of liberty and freedom.
Let's not rush to judgement until we find out if which side of this conflict is going to bow to Western authority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167</id>
	<title>Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people, who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them, also the player (Alex Mercer) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there?
<br> <br>
Sometimes the player character isn't the hero.  Get over it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people , who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them , also the player ( Alex Mercer ) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there ?
Sometimes the player character is n't the hero .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people, who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them, also the player (Alex Mercer) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there?
Sometimes the player character isn't the hero.
Get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29907341</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>localman</author>
	<datestamp>1256759580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games"</p><p>Good thing you're not saying that since there is actually no degradation of society to speak of:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/14/us-violent-crime-rates-lowest" title="reason.com">http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/14/us-violent-crime-rates-lowest</a> [reason.com]</p><p>That's what always baffles me about the people who do draw that conclusion: the numbers, if anything, indicate that since the dawn of violent video games things have got better.  I don't believe there's causation either way, but you'd think that such facts would put a nail in the coffin of those who think there is.</p><p>Cheers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games " Good thing you 're not saying that since there is actually no degradation of society to speak of :     http : //reason.com/blog/2009/09/14/us-violent-crime-rates-lowest [ reason.com ] That 's what always baffles me about the people who do draw that conclusion : the numbers , if anything , indicate that since the dawn of violent video games things have got better .
I do n't believe there 's causation either way , but you 'd think that such facts would put a nail in the coffin of those who think there is.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games"Good thing you're not saying that since there is actually no degradation of society to speak of:
    http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/14/us-violent-crime-rates-lowest [reason.com]That's what always baffles me about the people who do draw that conclusion: the numbers, if anything, indicate that since the dawn of violent video games things have got better.
I don't believe there's causation either way, but you'd think that such facts would put a nail in the coffin of those who think there is.Cheers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902087</id>
	<title>All right, pop quiz...</title>
	<author>lbalbalba</author>
	<datestamp>1256721720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Harry Temple: "Airport, gunman with one hostage. He's using her for cover; he's almost to a plane. You're a hundred feet away... Jack?"
<br>
Jack: "Shoot the hostage."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Harry Temple : " Airport , gunman with one hostage .
He 's using her for cover ; he 's almost to a plane .
You 're a hundred feet away.. .
Jack ? " Jack : " Shoot the hostage .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harry Temple: "Airport, gunman with one hostage.
He's using her for cover; he's almost to a plane.
You're a hundred feet away...
Jack?"

Jack: "Shoot the hostage.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902555</id>
	<title>I'm wating for Modern Warfare: Africa 2000.</title>
	<author>Organic Brain Damage</author>
	<datestamp>1256724000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The one where we get to rape teenage village girls to death and hack the limbs off their little brothers so they'll be unable to make a living or extract revenge.  That's some serious depravity.

Shooting a few "civilians" in a mall with automatic weapons pales in comparison.

As for civilians vs. combatants...on one level, the poor civilians are victims.  But from another perspective, civilians, through action and inaction, enable combat.  In the USA, we pay taxes used to buy bombs dropped on Pakistanis.  That makes US civilians, at least the taxpaying ones, complicit in the death-by-drone attacks.  To claim innocence is, except in the case of children who pay no taxes and exert little control, is intellectually dishonest.  And Afghani civilians, by failing to fight the Taliban who hide among them are, at least in part, responsible when they become collateral damage to US attacks on those Taliban.  In other words, there are no civilians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one where we get to rape teenage village girls to death and hack the limbs off their little brothers so they 'll be unable to make a living or extract revenge .
That 's some serious depravity .
Shooting a few " civilians " in a mall with automatic weapons pales in comparison .
As for civilians vs. combatants...on one level , the poor civilians are victims .
But from another perspective , civilians , through action and inaction , enable combat .
In the USA , we pay taxes used to buy bombs dropped on Pakistanis .
That makes US civilians , at least the taxpaying ones , complicit in the death-by-drone attacks .
To claim innocence is , except in the case of children who pay no taxes and exert little control , is intellectually dishonest .
And Afghani civilians , by failing to fight the Taliban who hide among them are , at least in part , responsible when they become collateral damage to US attacks on those Taliban .
In other words , there are no civilians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one where we get to rape teenage village girls to death and hack the limbs off their little brothers so they'll be unable to make a living or extract revenge.
That's some serious depravity.
Shooting a few "civilians" in a mall with automatic weapons pales in comparison.
As for civilians vs. combatants...on one level, the poor civilians are victims.
But from another perspective, civilians, through action and inaction, enable combat.
In the USA, we pay taxes used to buy bombs dropped on Pakistanis.
That makes US civilians, at least the taxpaying ones, complicit in the death-by-drone attacks.
To claim innocence is, except in the case of children who pay no taxes and exert little control, is intellectually dishonest.
And Afghani civilians, by failing to fight the Taliban who hide among them are, at least in part, responsible when they become collateral damage to US attacks on those Taliban.
In other words, there are no civilians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901779</id>
	<title>Thanks for the spoiler warning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Spoiler warning.) I hate you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Spoiler warning .
) I hate you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Spoiler warning.
) I hate you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902173</id>
	<title>no outrage here</title>
	<author>ClickWir</author>
	<datestamp>1256722080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No outrage here. I'm looking forward to the game. Looks like it depicts real life situations where sometimes people do bad things. Video games aren't always about painting a pretty picture of how the good guys always get there before the bad guys do anything. Why not try the other side of it and see how horrible of a person you could be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No outrage here .
I 'm looking forward to the game .
Looks like it depicts real life situations where sometimes people do bad things .
Video games are n't always about painting a pretty picture of how the good guys always get there before the bad guys do anything .
Why not try the other side of it and see how horrible of a person you could be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No outrage here.
I'm looking forward to the game.
Looks like it depicts real life situations where sometimes people do bad things.
Video games aren't always about painting a pretty picture of how the good guys always get there before the bad guys do anything.
Why not try the other side of it and see how horrible of a person you could be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903099</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1256726940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Games allow us to take mindsets of people in places that we've never been in and probably never will be in. In this case, Modern Warfare 2 allows us to be in the eyes of (reportedly) a CIA operative that has to go along with the terrorists to continue his facade. That's something that, while morally disturbing, is a fascinating look into the way a person would feel about doing that. You must choose between two evils. Fun? No. That's like saying you had fun reading Slaughterhouse Five. But it's certainly meaningful and emotionally complex, something that few games attempt to do.<br> <br>Additionally, you see a connection between the violence on a TV screen and the violence that occurs in real life. I have to struggle to pretend it is real (speaking as a college student here). Very abstracted, very removed from real life. If there's anything this generation of teenagers has a grasp on, it's the difference between reality and virtual reality. You pretend it's real for a very small period of time, just like a book or a movie, so that you can engage your brain (or the very opposite, depending on the quality of the media), but you know full damn well that the game has nothing to do with real life. At all. Full stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games allow us to take mindsets of people in places that we 've never been in and probably never will be in .
In this case , Modern Warfare 2 allows us to be in the eyes of ( reportedly ) a CIA operative that has to go along with the terrorists to continue his facade .
That 's something that , while morally disturbing , is a fascinating look into the way a person would feel about doing that .
You must choose between two evils .
Fun ? No .
That 's like saying you had fun reading Slaughterhouse Five .
But it 's certainly meaningful and emotionally complex , something that few games attempt to do .
Additionally , you see a connection between the violence on a TV screen and the violence that occurs in real life .
I have to struggle to pretend it is real ( speaking as a college student here ) .
Very abstracted , very removed from real life .
If there 's anything this generation of teenagers has a grasp on , it 's the difference between reality and virtual reality .
You pretend it 's real for a very small period of time , just like a book or a movie , so that you can engage your brain ( or the very opposite , depending on the quality of the media ) , but you know full damn well that the game has nothing to do with real life .
At all .
Full stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games allow us to take mindsets of people in places that we've never been in and probably never will be in.
In this case, Modern Warfare 2 allows us to be in the eyes of (reportedly) a CIA operative that has to go along with the terrorists to continue his facade.
That's something that, while morally disturbing, is a fascinating look into the way a person would feel about doing that.
You must choose between two evils.
Fun? No.
That's like saying you had fun reading Slaughterhouse Five.
But it's certainly meaningful and emotionally complex, something that few games attempt to do.
Additionally, you see a connection between the violence on a TV screen and the violence that occurs in real life.
I have to struggle to pretend it is real (speaking as a college student here).
Very abstracted, very removed from real life.
If there's anything this generation of teenagers has a grasp on, it's the difference between reality and virtual reality.
You pretend it's real for a very small period of time, just like a book or a movie, so that you can engage your brain (or the very opposite, depending on the quality of the media), but you know full damn well that the game has nothing to do with real life.
At all.
Full stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901107</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256760360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it sounds like if we had your way we'd all either live under Hitler's successor, Soviet Communism, Castro's Communism or some other dictator hell bent on world domination.</p><p>There's a reason why they say, "War is Hell." For all of you hippie idiots out there, go live in a dictatorship for a while and then maybe you will appreciate and understand that while war is brutal, it is a necessary evil to sustain YOUR way of life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it sounds like if we had your way we 'd all either live under Hitler 's successor , Soviet Communism , Castro 's Communism or some other dictator hell bent on world domination.There 's a reason why they say , " War is Hell .
" For all of you hippie idiots out there , go live in a dictatorship for a while and then maybe you will appreciate and understand that while war is brutal , it is a necessary evil to sustain YOUR way of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it sounds like if we had your way we'd all either live under Hitler's successor, Soviet Communism, Castro's Communism or some other dictator hell bent on world domination.There's a reason why they say, "War is Hell.
" For all of you hippie idiots out there, go live in a dictatorship for a while and then maybe you will appreciate and understand that while war is brutal, it is a necessary evil to sustain YOUR way of life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905951</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people dream about being that glorified hero, serving justice, upholding good, making a difference, defeating evil, etc., etc.</p><p>Most people don't want to give up their family, home, easy life and so on to do years of hard training to MAYBE be something that doesn't even really resemble that hero.</p><p>I did 4 years in the Marine Corps and served well; but I will tell you that it was not what I expected and it did not live up to the dream; it mostly was stressful and really wasn't fun in any sense of the word. I had tremendous pride in wearing the uniform, but that's about it.</p><p>So they play a game, day dream a little, and go back to the daily grind. I think It is a bit of an escape and that's about it. I still like to play Dawn of War 2 and similar games; day dream about being the bad ass hero; slaughter countless enemies, put it down, and go back to work/school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people dream about being that glorified hero , serving justice , upholding good , making a difference , defeating evil , etc. , etc.Most people do n't want to give up their family , home , easy life and so on to do years of hard training to MAYBE be something that does n't even really resemble that hero.I did 4 years in the Marine Corps and served well ; but I will tell you that it was not what I expected and it did not live up to the dream ; it mostly was stressful and really was n't fun in any sense of the word .
I had tremendous pride in wearing the uniform , but that 's about it.So they play a game , day dream a little , and go back to the daily grind .
I think It is a bit of an escape and that 's about it .
I still like to play Dawn of War 2 and similar games ; day dream about being the bad ass hero ; slaughter countless enemies , put it down , and go back to work/school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people dream about being that glorified hero, serving justice, upholding good, making a difference, defeating evil, etc., etc.Most people don't want to give up their family, home, easy life and so on to do years of hard training to MAYBE be something that doesn't even really resemble that hero.I did 4 years in the Marine Corps and served well; but I will tell you that it was not what I expected and it did not live up to the dream; it mostly was stressful and really wasn't fun in any sense of the word.
I had tremendous pride in wearing the uniform, but that's about it.So they play a game, day dream a little, and go back to the daily grind.
I think It is a bit of an escape and that's about it.
I still like to play Dawn of War 2 and similar games; day dream about being the bad ass hero; slaughter countless enemies, put it down, and go back to work/school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901587</id>
	<title>Killing Civilians with Terrorists...</title>
	<author>HighFalutinCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1256762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How, exactly, do you kill a civilian with a terrorist?  Do you drop the terrorists - like bombs - from a high altitude in order to crush the civilians?  Perhaps you use the dismembered limbs of the terrorists to beat the civilians to death?  Maybe something more like the Human Cannonball routine, except with terrorist corpses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How , exactly , do you kill a civilian with a terrorist ?
Do you drop the terrorists - like bombs - from a high altitude in order to crush the civilians ?
Perhaps you use the dismembered limbs of the terrorists to beat the civilians to death ?
Maybe something more like the Human Cannonball routine , except with terrorist corpses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How, exactly, do you kill a civilian with a terrorist?
Do you drop the terrorists - like bombs - from a high altitude in order to crush the civilians?
Perhaps you use the dismembered limbs of the terrorists to beat the civilians to death?
Maybe something more like the Human Cannonball routine, except with terrorist corpses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899895</id>
	<title>WOW</title>
	<author>longfalcon</author>
	<datestamp>1256755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>someone is managing the launch of this game <i>really</i> well....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>someone is managing the launch of this game really well... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone is managing the launch of this game really well....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903701</id>
	<title>Re:Modern Warfare</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1256730180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Woosh. Like, huge woosh. Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh</htmltext>
<tokenext>Woosh .
Like , huge woosh .
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woosh.
Like, huge woosh.
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29916255</id>
	<title>Already shown in an existing trailer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256810220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to recall some of the earliest trailers of modern warfare already showed this. You know, the ones where it was just green audio waveform like graphics that subtly painted the picture of the scene. For some reason, I remember a bunch of dudes in an elevator, when they got to the top, they put on masks, there was a ding when the doors opened, and they busted out and started shooting. Is this the same? I haven't been able to see the trailer since I've been at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall some of the earliest trailers of modern warfare already showed this .
You know , the ones where it was just green audio waveform like graphics that subtly painted the picture of the scene .
For some reason , I remember a bunch of dudes in an elevator , when they got to the top , they put on masks , there was a ding when the doors opened , and they busted out and started shooting .
Is this the same ?
I have n't been able to see the trailer since I 've been at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall some of the earliest trailers of modern warfare already showed this.
You know, the ones where it was just green audio waveform like graphics that subtly painted the picture of the scene.
For some reason, I remember a bunch of dudes in an elevator, when they got to the top, they put on masks, there was a ding when the doors opened, and they busted out and started shooting.
Is this the same?
I haven't been able to see the trailer since I've been at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901279</id>
	<title>Not confusing me</title>
	<author>Sibko</author>
	<datestamp>1256761200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm confused.</p><p>This (from TFA and Activision):</p><blockquote><div><p>The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Does not equal this (from TFS):</p><blockquote><div><p>Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists</p></div></blockquote><p>Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?  This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.</p></div><p>
It seems pretty simple: You play as a terrorist for one mission, and then the next mission you play as a counter terrorist.
<br> <br>
I saw this leaked video even before there was much commentary or controversy on it, and this point was still exceedingly clear. You seem to be trying to imply that Infinity Ward is pulling a fast one, when they clearly are not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused.This ( from TFA and Activision ) : The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit .
By establishing that evil , it adds to the urgency of the player 's mission to stop them.Does not equal this ( from TFS ) : Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terroristsWhich one is it ( or is it both somehow ) ?
This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of .
It seems pretty simple : You play as a terrorist for one mission , and then the next mission you play as a counter terrorist .
I saw this leaked video even before there was much commentary or controversy on it , and this point was still exceedingly clear .
You seem to be trying to imply that Infinity Ward is pulling a fast one , when they clearly are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.This (from TFA and Activision):The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit.
By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.Does not equal this (from TFS):Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terroristsWhich one is it (or is it both somehow)?
This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.
It seems pretty simple: You play as a terrorist for one mission, and then the next mission you play as a counter terrorist.
I saw this leaked video even before there was much commentary or controversy on it, and this point was still exceedingly clear.
You seem to be trying to imply that Infinity Ward is pulling a fast one, when they clearly are not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29913409</id>
	<title>This is good news!</title>
	<author>MasterNetHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256842560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope this means that there will be fewer 12 year olds playing on XBL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this means that there will be fewer 12 year olds playing on XBL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this means that there will be fewer 12 year olds playing on XBL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904997</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>Hybrid-brain</author>
	<datestamp>1256737920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The far left Christian extremists are already doing that.  I find them funny.  as well as absurd because they're taking things out that are part of the movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The far left Christian extremists are already doing that .
I find them funny .
as well as absurd because they 're taking things out that are part of the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The far left Christian extremists are already doing that.
I find them funny.
as well as absurd because they're taking things out that are part of the movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29907051</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom Fighters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. I think they just need to explain that these civilians are Iraqis and everyone will understand that a bit of collateral damage is the price of having your country liberated!<p> No outrage necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I think they just need to explain that these civilians are Iraqis and everyone will understand that a bit of collateral damage is the price of having your country liberated !
No outrage necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I think they just need to explain that these civilians are Iraqis and everyone will understand that a bit of collateral damage is the price of having your country liberated!
No outrage necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901011</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>BoredAtWorkWhatElse</author>
	<datestamp>1256759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here, not to mention the 60$ price tag. Another victim of consolization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here , not to mention the 60 $ price tag .
Another victim of consolization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here, not to mention the 60$ price tag.
Another victim of consolization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900273</id>
	<title>Context people, context</title>
	<author>thewils</author>
	<datestamp>1256756940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before jumping to conclusions I'd like to see the context for this scene. Infinity Ward have done a bang-up job with the franchise so far so I'll cut them some slack by not taking things out of context thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before jumping to conclusions I 'd like to see the context for this scene .
Infinity Ward have done a bang-up job with the franchise so far so I 'll cut them some slack by not taking things out of context thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before jumping to conclusions I'd like to see the context for this scene.
Infinity Ward have done a bang-up job with the franchise so far so I'll cut them some slack by not taking things out of context thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902147</id>
	<title>What is the problem?</title>
	<author>eric-x</author>
	<datestamp>1256721960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously what's the problem?<br>At a certain age you can decide for yourself what you want to read/see/play. Rate it M and be done.<br>A game is not real, so it never can go "too far".</p><p>They just don't like what they see and decide that it goes "too far". ROFLOL. There are many things I don't like, eg. gay porn, and you don't hear me making a scene out of it.</p><p>Let the gamers decide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously what 's the problem ? At a certain age you can decide for yourself what you want to read/see/play .
Rate it M and be done.A game is not real , so it never can go " too far " .They just do n't like what they see and decide that it goes " too far " .
ROFLOL. There are many things I do n't like , eg .
gay porn , and you do n't hear me making a scene out of it.Let the gamers decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously what's the problem?At a certain age you can decide for yourself what you want to read/see/play.
Rate it M and be done.A game is not real, so it never can go "too far".They just don't like what they see and decide that it goes "too far".
ROFLOL. There are many things I don't like, eg.
gay porn, and you don't hear me making a scene out of it.Let the gamers decide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900149</id>
	<title>Meh Lame-oh</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1256756340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>simply some lazy marketer trying to hype the game.  About 40,000 people die from terrorists each year in the U.S., only here we use the euphemism "automobile drivers".</htmltext>
<tokenext>simply some lazy marketer trying to hype the game .
About 40,000 people die from terrorists each year in the U.S. , only here we use the euphemism " automobile drivers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>simply some lazy marketer trying to hype the game.
About 40,000 people die from terrorists each year in the U.S., only here we use the euphemism "automobile drivers".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900091</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... how<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ?
</i> <br> <br>
Running over people was the backup option. I really wanted to run over animals, but have you ever noticed that there aren't any dogs in Liberty City?</htmltext>
<tokenext>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ? Running over people was the backup option .
I really wanted to run over animals , but have you ever noticed that there are n't any dogs in Liberty City ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?
  
Running over people was the backup option.
I really wanted to run over animals, but have you ever noticed that there aren't any dogs in Liberty City?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901445</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256761920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocaust123.JPG<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World\_War\_II\_Casualties2.svg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Holocaust123.JPGhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : World \ _War \ _II \ _Casualties2.svg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocaust123.JPGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World\_War\_II\_Casualties2.svg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901601</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256762640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree.  There will still be people who support going to war after knowing the costs.  The USA would not have become a nation had the rebels decided to take oppression and life over liberty and potential death.  The South USA decided the injustice they felt the North was heaving on them was enough to violently defend their way of life.  The North USA decided a united nation was more important and disagreed violently that the South should be allowed break away.
<br> <br>Yes, war sucks.  But sometimes it is very necessary to defend ones life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, no matter what nation they live in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
There will still be people who support going to war after knowing the costs .
The USA would not have become a nation had the rebels decided to take oppression and life over liberty and potential death .
The South USA decided the injustice they felt the North was heaving on them was enough to violently defend their way of life .
The North USA decided a united nation was more important and disagreed violently that the South should be allowed break away .
Yes , war sucks .
But sometimes it is very necessary to defend ones life , liberty , and pursuit of happiness , no matter what nation they live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
There will still be people who support going to war after knowing the costs.
The USA would not have become a nation had the rebels decided to take oppression and life over liberty and potential death.
The South USA decided the injustice they felt the North was heaving on them was enough to violently defend their way of life.
The North USA decided a united nation was more important and disagreed violently that the South should be allowed break away.
Yes, war sucks.
But sometimes it is very necessary to defend ones life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, no matter what nation they live in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904161</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>Dreadrik</author>
	<datestamp>1256733060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because play, at all levels, is based on training for the future.  Puppies play fight, chase, hunt, and hump because those are all things they need to be able to do as adults.  Humans are the same way.  We play at running a house, at being parents, at hunting/escaping, and yes, we play at warfare.  Even organized sports, for the most part, boil down to ritualized tribal warfare or atleast competition.</p></div><p>I agree with your point that play is an important part in the human (as well as animal) development, but I don't think it's "at all levels based on training for the future".<br>We <i>can</i> actually play for pure entertainment. Though we might still play war games as part of some socially or genetic heritage, I think the entertainment part is becoming greater. Especially for people who has not been directly involved in any real conflict (war) for generations.</p><p>You might say that the enjoyment, or the physiological reward of playing such a game as tetris is in fact training our brains for some future conflict, but I can't really find the link.</p><p>We want our endorphin, dopamine, adreanline or whatever hormone, and find ways to produce it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because play , at all levels , is based on training for the future .
Puppies play fight , chase , hunt , and hump because those are all things they need to be able to do as adults .
Humans are the same way .
We play at running a house , at being parents , at hunting/escaping , and yes , we play at warfare .
Even organized sports , for the most part , boil down to ritualized tribal warfare or atleast competition.I agree with your point that play is an important part in the human ( as well as animal ) development , but I do n't think it 's " at all levels based on training for the future " .We can actually play for pure entertainment .
Though we might still play war games as part of some socially or genetic heritage , I think the entertainment part is becoming greater .
Especially for people who has not been directly involved in any real conflict ( war ) for generations.You might say that the enjoyment , or the physiological reward of playing such a game as tetris is in fact training our brains for some future conflict , but I ca n't really find the link.We want our endorphin , dopamine , adreanline or whatever hormone , and find ways to produce it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because play, at all levels, is based on training for the future.
Puppies play fight, chase, hunt, and hump because those are all things they need to be able to do as adults.
Humans are the same way.
We play at running a house, at being parents, at hunting/escaping, and yes, we play at warfare.
Even organized sports, for the most part, boil down to ritualized tribal warfare or atleast competition.I agree with your point that play is an important part in the human (as well as animal) development, but I don't think it's "at all levels based on training for the future".We can actually play for pure entertainment.
Though we might still play war games as part of some socially or genetic heritage, I think the entertainment part is becoming greater.
Especially for people who has not been directly involved in any real conflict (war) for generations.You might say that the enjoyment, or the physiological reward of playing such a game as tetris is in fact training our brains for some future conflict, but I can't really find the link.We want our endorphin, dopamine, adreanline or whatever hormone, and find ways to produce it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905071</id>
	<title>Obligatory Columbine mention.</title>
	<author>Holammer</author>
	<datestamp>1256738640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back when we had the massacre at Columbine high school in '99, media jumped on the fact that both guys played Doom and Quake. Imagine the shitstorm if in one or two years something similar happens again and the cops find copies of Modern Warfare 2 in their 360 games collections. M rating be damned, we all know that MW2 will find its way into the hands of millions of impressionable emo tweens and teens.
Can we please have some consumer awareness so that they learn the rating on the box is there for a reason? I once had to talk a mother out of buying GTA IV for her 11yo son for crying out loud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when we had the massacre at Columbine high school in '99 , media jumped on the fact that both guys played Doom and Quake .
Imagine the shitstorm if in one or two years something similar happens again and the cops find copies of Modern Warfare 2 in their 360 games collections .
M rating be damned , we all know that MW2 will find its way into the hands of millions of impressionable emo tweens and teens .
Can we please have some consumer awareness so that they learn the rating on the box is there for a reason ?
I once had to talk a mother out of buying GTA IV for her 11yo son for crying out loud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when we had the massacre at Columbine high school in '99, media jumped on the fact that both guys played Doom and Quake.
Imagine the shitstorm if in one or two years something similar happens again and the cops find copies of Modern Warfare 2 in their 360 games collections.
M rating be damned, we all know that MW2 will find its way into the hands of millions of impressionable emo tweens and teens.
Can we please have some consumer awareness so that they learn the rating on the box is there for a reason?
I once had to talk a mother out of buying GTA IV for her 11yo son for crying out loud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902009</id>
	<title>Re:Content Warning...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing. I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content. Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings. If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it. A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it. It loses emotional impact that way.</p></div><p>First, I generally agree with you.  However, I think we're too stuck in this lawsuit culture for them to risk that, no matter how much sense it makes from an artistic/story-telling perspective.  I hope games someday are respected enough that they can get away with that, but with the way some parents (don't) raise their kids, that's likely pretty far off.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war. A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered. Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?</p></div><p>Exactly.  My personal favorite is the assassination scene from the beginning of the game, where you're dragged out and shot in first-person view.  That has to be one the all-time most powerful moments in entertainment for me, more than any movie or book I've seen/read and I think it's fantastic that we can do that.  We watch movies and read books to invoke emotions.  Games shouldn't be any different (if they're written to tell a story).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing .
I understand where they 're coming from on this , but if it 's rated M on the box , I expect M-rated content .
Do n't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings .
If it 's really that bad , give me the option when I start a new game to skip " objectionable content " and then do n't bother me again with it .
A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it .
It loses emotional impact that way.First , I generally agree with you .
However , I think we 're too stuck in this lawsuit culture for them to risk that , no matter how much sense it makes from an artistic/story-telling perspective .
I hope games someday are respected enough that they can get away with that , but with the way some parents ( do n't ) raise their kids , that 's likely pretty far off.Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games ( at least the installments made by Infinity Ward ) , and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war .
A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered .
Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you 'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was " potentially disturbing " ? Exactly .
My personal favorite is the assassination scene from the beginning of the game , where you 're dragged out and shot in first-person view .
That has to be one the all-time most powerful moments in entertainment for me , more than any movie or book I 've seen/read and I think it 's fantastic that we can do that .
We watch movies and read books to invoke emotions .
Games should n't be any different ( if they 're written to tell a story ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing.
I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content.
Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings.
If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it.
A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it.
It loses emotional impact that way.First, I generally agree with you.
However, I think we're too stuck in this lawsuit culture for them to risk that, no matter how much sense it makes from an artistic/story-telling perspective.
I hope games someday are respected enough that they can get away with that, but with the way some parents (don't) raise their kids, that's likely pretty far off.Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war.
A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered.
Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?Exactly.
My personal favorite is the assassination scene from the beginning of the game, where you're dragged out and shot in first-person view.
That has to be one the all-time most powerful moments in entertainment for me, more than any movie or book I've seen/read and I think it's fantastic that we can do that.
We watch movies and read books to invoke emotions.
Games shouldn't be any different (if they're written to tell a story).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901693</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256763180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the game will be an instant hit with the Israeli armed forces...</p><p>Will players also be able to firebomb schools and UN outposts?</p><p>*bring on the flamebait mods...*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the game will be an instant hit with the Israeli armed forces...Will players also be able to firebomb schools and UN outposts ?
* bring on the flamebait mods... *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the game will be an instant hit with the Israeli armed forces...Will players also be able to firebomb schools and UN outposts?
*bring on the flamebait mods...*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901647</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256762940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>don't kid yourself without foreign oil and gas america is dead<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it actually already is dead it just will not lay down and die<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it's government just keeps printing money and manipulating the economy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and the american people and the rest of the world let them get away with it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>not to mention that during the vietnam war<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. back when america had a relatively free and open press<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the american people got to see the horrors WAR it was in the news day in and day out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and they had not been as desensitized to violence by years of violent television and video games<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. as they now are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>but without the foreign oil.. the price of gas in the us would be $7-10 a gallon and the economy would implode<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. as long as the oil keeps flowing most americans really don't and won't care<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>just keep the gas flowing for us will you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>since National Security Memorandum 200 population control in the third world has been official us foreign policy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. how many americans know that fact and how many would really care ?</p><p>do you really think america has honestly earned it's present standard of living ???</p><p>because of it's advantage of have the underground economy's currency of chose<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. being the reserve currency<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and because all foreign all debts has been calculated in terms of us dollars<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it has been milking the rest of the world for almost a 100 years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>i do know what the average american is taught in school about history and the rest of the world<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>but in the days of the INTERNET there really is no reason and no excuse for americans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. to not having a fuller and truer understanding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. of the us its foreign policies and actions throughout and in the world over the last 100 or so years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't kid yourself without foreign oil and gas america is dead .. it actually already is dead it just will not lay down and die .. it 's government just keeps printing money and manipulating the economy .. and the american people and the rest of the world let them get away with it ..not to mention that during the vietnam war .. back when america had a relatively free and open press .. the american people got to see the horrors WAR it was in the news day in and day out .. and they had not been as desensitized to violence by years of violent television and video games .. as they now are ..but without the foreign oil.. the price of gas in the us would be $ 7-10 a gallon and the economy would implode .. as long as the oil keeps flowing most americans really do n't and wo n't care ..just keep the gas flowing for us will you ..since National Security Memorandum 200 population control in the third world has been official us foreign policy .. how many americans know that fact and how many would really care ? do you really think america has honestly earned it 's present standard of living ? ?
? because of it 's advantage of have the underground economy 's currency of chose .. being the reserve currency .. and because all foreign all debts has been calculated in terms of us dollars .. it has been milking the rest of the world for almost a 100 years ..i do know what the average american is taught in school about history and the rest of the world ..but in the days of the INTERNET there really is no reason and no excuse for americans .. to not having a fuller and truer understanding .. of the us its foreign policies and actions throughout and in the world over the last 100 or so years . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't kid yourself without foreign oil and gas america is dead .. it actually already is dead it just will not lay down and die .. it's government just keeps printing money and manipulating the economy .. and the american people and the rest of the world let them get away with it ..not to mention that during the vietnam war .. back when america had a relatively free and open press .. the american people got to see the horrors WAR it was in the news day in and day out .. and they had not been as desensitized to violence by years of violent television and video games .. as they now are ..but without the foreign oil.. the price of gas in the us would be $7-10 a gallon and the economy would implode .. as long as the oil keeps flowing most americans really don't and won't care ..just keep the gas flowing for us will you ..since National Security Memorandum 200 population control in the third world has been official us foreign policy .. how many americans know that fact and how many would really care ?do you really think america has honestly earned it's present standard of living ??
?because of it's advantage of have the underground economy's currency of chose .. being the reserve currency .. and because all foreign all debts has been calculated in terms of us dollars .. it has been milking the rest of the world for almost a 100 years ..i do know what the average american is taught in school about history and the rest of the world ..but in the days of the INTERNET there really is no reason and no excuse for americans .. to not having a fuller and truer understanding .. of the us its foreign policies and actions throughout and in the world over the last 100 or so years ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899943</id>
	<title>Blackwater</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1256755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really see what the problem is. I mean, it wouldn't be the first time...</p><p>Also: IT'S A GAME, IDIOTS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see what the problem is .
I mean , it would n't be the first time...Also : IT 'S A GAME , IDIOTS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see what the problem is.
I mean, it wouldn't be the first time...Also: IT'S A GAME, IDIOTS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29922069</id>
	<title>pseudorighteous outcry</title>
	<author>johnhoffmann24th</author>
	<datestamp>1256904600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i think those people who complain, do so to convince themselves how righteous they are (religious right, anyone?). if they truly were righteous, they would'nt feel the need to proclaim publicly, i guess.

seems that the principle "those who are affected the least, complain the loudest." can be applied here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i think those people who complain , do so to convince themselves how righteous they are ( religious right , anyone ? ) .
if they truly were righteous , they would'nt feel the need to proclaim publicly , i guess .
seems that the principle " those who are affected the least , complain the loudest .
" can be applied here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think those people who complain, do so to convince themselves how righteous they are (religious right, anyone?).
if they truly were righteous, they would'nt feel the need to proclaim publicly, i guess.
seems that the principle "those who are affected the least, complain the loudest.
" can be applied here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903869</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So why didn't the west take down Stalin when they could? I did live under the Soviets, thank you very much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why did n't the west take down Stalin when they could ?
I did live under the Soviets , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why didn't the west take down Stalin when they could?
I did live under the Soviets, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979</id>
	<title>OK, new policy.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1256755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Anybody</i> who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901065</id>
	<title>Re:Not the first game.</title>
	<author>turtleshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1256760120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was more offended at the suicide on Sins of the Father. I wasn't expecting that. That was scripted as was the mop up at the Presidents execution.<br>This seems to be more in level play which is more heightened for effect. I'd not want to think that the mission goals in the video must be satisfied with civilian body count. To be perverse  would be to watch all the \_wounded\_ and frightened dragging and scrambling away than to put them on the ground like at 3:37ish.</p><p>I don't know french but perhaps your the one providing cover to the AI killbots from the security...</p><p>But really this messed up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was more offended at the suicide on Sins of the Father .
I was n't expecting that .
That was scripted as was the mop up at the Presidents execution.This seems to be more in level play which is more heightened for effect .
I 'd not want to think that the mission goals in the video must be satisfied with civilian body count .
To be perverse would be to watch all the \ _wounded \ _ and frightened dragging and scrambling away than to put them on the ground like at 3 : 37ish.I do n't know french but perhaps your the one providing cover to the AI killbots from the security...But really this messed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was more offended at the suicide on Sins of the Father.
I wasn't expecting that.
That was scripted as was the mop up at the Presidents execution.This seems to be more in level play which is more heightened for effect.
I'd not want to think that the mission goals in the video must be satisfied with civilian body count.
To be perverse  would be to watch all the \_wounded\_ and frightened dragging and scrambling away than to put them on the ground like at 3:37ish.I don't know french but perhaps your the one providing cover to the AI killbots from the security...But really this messed up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902659</id>
	<title>Remember Virtua Cop...</title>
	<author>Fett101</author>
	<datestamp>1256724660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well if hostages would stop popping up on the bottom of the screen I'd stop shooting them and none of this would be an issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if hostages would stop popping up on the bottom of the screen I 'd stop shooting them and none of this would be an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if hostages would stop popping up on the bottom of the screen I'd stop shooting them and none of this would be an issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087</id>
	<title>Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm confused.</p><p>This (from TFA and Activision):</p><blockquote><div><p>The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Does not equal this (from TFS):</p><blockquote><div><p>Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists</p></div></blockquote><p>Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?  This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused.This ( from TFA and Activision ) : The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit .
By establishing that evil , it adds to the urgency of the player 's mission to stop them.Does not equal this ( from TFS ) : Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terroristsWhich one is it ( or is it both somehow ) ?
This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.This (from TFA and Activision):The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit.
By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.Does not equal this (from TFS):Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terroristsWhich one is it (or is it both somehow)?
This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901731</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>Acapulco</author>
	<datestamp>1256763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Maybe people like *some* parts of violent conflict but not others.<br> <br>

People might like the tactics challenge, strategic challenge, precision challenge (aiming), and generally the challenge to solve some problem/situation someone else has designed, without the urge or desire to do real harm.<br> <br>

It's probably the same as the shooting gallery at some circus or fair. You like the challenge of shooting metal animals, but not necesarily like to shoot live animals.<br> <br>

I for one like the strategic side of, say, Starcraft, where you have to decide maybe to rush the oponent with zerglings or wait until you get Ultralisks/Mutalisks/whatever and then kill my opponent. That doesn't mean I would love to send thousands of soldiers to "rush" some enemy base and get 90\% of them killed in the process.<br> <br>

So maybe people like being able to play as something they sure as hell won't be able/like to do in real life as the GTA franchise success has taught us. You might like mafia movies but that doesn't mean you *should* also like real life mafias.<br> <br>

And that's the beauty of games I guess. To have the ability to do something you wouldn't/couldn't do in real life.<br> <br>

No?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe people like * some * parts of violent conflict but not others .
People might like the tactics challenge , strategic challenge , precision challenge ( aiming ) , and generally the challenge to solve some problem/situation someone else has designed , without the urge or desire to do real harm .
It 's probably the same as the shooting gallery at some circus or fair .
You like the challenge of shooting metal animals , but not necesarily like to shoot live animals .
I for one like the strategic side of , say , Starcraft , where you have to decide maybe to rush the oponent with zerglings or wait until you get Ultralisks/Mutalisks/whatever and then kill my opponent .
That does n't mean I would love to send thousands of soldiers to " rush " some enemy base and get 90 \ % of them killed in the process .
So maybe people like being able to play as something they sure as hell wo n't be able/like to do in real life as the GTA franchise success has taught us .
You might like mafia movies but that does n't mean you * should * also like real life mafias .
And that 's the beauty of games I guess .
To have the ability to do something you would n't/could n't do in real life .
No ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Maybe people like *some* parts of violent conflict but not others.
People might like the tactics challenge, strategic challenge, precision challenge (aiming), and generally the challenge to solve some problem/situation someone else has designed, without the urge or desire to do real harm.
It's probably the same as the shooting gallery at some circus or fair.
You like the challenge of shooting metal animals, but not necesarily like to shoot live animals.
I for one like the strategic side of, say, Starcraft, where you have to decide maybe to rush the oponent with zerglings or wait until you get Ultralisks/Mutalisks/whatever and then kill my opponent.
That doesn't mean I would love to send thousands of soldiers to "rush" some enemy base and get 90\% of them killed in the process.
So maybe people like being able to play as something they sure as hell won't be able/like to do in real life as the GTA franchise success has taught us.
You might like mafia movies but that doesn't mean you *should* also like real life mafias.
And that's the beauty of games I guess.
To have the ability to do something you wouldn't/couldn't do in real life.
No?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901507</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>camazotz</author>
	<datestamp>1256762280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's an issue of graphical realism. Prototype, for all its carnage, was still clearly a cartoonish video game (yes, very clean graphics, but nothing compared to MW2's accurate CGI renderings). We're approaching the age when games are starting to look a bit too close to life for the average mundane's (muggle's...whatever) comfort....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's an issue of graphical realism .
Prototype , for all its carnage , was still clearly a cartoonish video game ( yes , very clean graphics , but nothing compared to MW2 's accurate CGI renderings ) .
We 're approaching the age when games are starting to look a bit too close to life for the average mundane 's ( muggle 's...whatever ) comfort... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's an issue of graphical realism.
Prototype, for all its carnage, was still clearly a cartoonish video game (yes, very clean graphics, but nothing compared to MW2's accurate CGI renderings).
We're approaching the age when games are starting to look a bit too close to life for the average mundane's (muggle's...whatever) comfort....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900117</id>
	<title>Re:Good name</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1256756280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civilians <i>in a video game</i> but American soldiers murdering foreign citizens in real life is just Standard Operating Procedure. Not worthy of any outrage apparently. Oh and by funny I mean retarded, they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio, it would solve most of societies ills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how the media can be " outraged " about killing civilians in a video game but American soldiers murdering foreign citizens in real life is just Standard Operating Procedure .
Not worthy of any outrage apparently .
Oh and by funny I mean retarded , they should just shut down every corporate owned " news " studio , it would solve most of societies ills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how the media can be "outraged" about killing civilians in a video game but American soldiers murdering foreign citizens in real life is just Standard Operating Procedure.
Not worthy of any outrage apparently.
Oh and by funny I mean retarded, they should just shut down every corporate owned "news" studio, it would solve most of societies ills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29908209</id>
	<title>SPOILERS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256816700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did we really need spoilers on the front page of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did we really need spoilers on the front page of ./</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did we really need spoilers on the front page of ./</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900729</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Hmm, I don't know. The scene shows vast numbers of citizen getting shot by a group of 3 or 4 people. When the exit the building containing all the civilians they continue to slaughter what seem to me police anti-terrorist squads or military special forces units. I don't know any terrorist incident, where </p><ul><li>terrorists operated in units of 3 or 4 shooting civilians outoors</li></ul><ul><li>made so many victims</li></ul><ul><li>Killed special forces in vast numbers</li></ul><p>
The Pakistani Terrorists that shot semi-random people (apparantly they tried to shoot mostly westerners) acted simultaneously, but solitary. They didn't shoot any special forces or government officials for that matter. The beslan killers in Southern Russia made hostages first, keeping special forces at arms length. They executed a few hostages, but hey only started shooting hostages in droves when the special forces started doing the exact same thing. This happened in the confinement of a building. The NordOst shootout in Moscow was also a hostage scene inside a building and developed along the same scenario. Of course, bombing is also a completely different scenario, where you have a good chance of making a fair number of victims. Probably that doesn't add up to very exciting video games.
</p><p>
Making a fair number of victims by shooting random people in a non-confined environment is actually very hard, let alone shooting special forces outdoors.
</p><p>
so live it up! The world may be a grim place, but not THAT grim (unless you enjoy slaughtering people in vast numbers in bright daylight, of course).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I do n't know .
The scene shows vast numbers of citizen getting shot by a group of 3 or 4 people .
When the exit the building containing all the civilians they continue to slaughter what seem to me police anti-terrorist squads or military special forces units .
I do n't know any terrorist incident , where terrorists operated in units of 3 or 4 shooting civilians outoorsmade so many victimsKilled special forces in vast numbers The Pakistani Terrorists that shot semi-random people ( apparantly they tried to shoot mostly westerners ) acted simultaneously , but solitary .
They did n't shoot any special forces or government officials for that matter .
The beslan killers in Southern Russia made hostages first , keeping special forces at arms length .
They executed a few hostages , but hey only started shooting hostages in droves when the special forces started doing the exact same thing .
This happened in the confinement of a building .
The NordOst shootout in Moscow was also a hostage scene inside a building and developed along the same scenario .
Of course , bombing is also a completely different scenario , where you have a good chance of making a fair number of victims .
Probably that does n't add up to very exciting video games .
Making a fair number of victims by shooting random people in a non-confined environment is actually very hard , let alone shooting special forces outdoors .
so live it up !
The world may be a grim place , but not THAT grim ( unless you enjoy slaughtering people in vast numbers in bright daylight , of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hmm, I don't know.
The scene shows vast numbers of citizen getting shot by a group of 3 or 4 people.
When the exit the building containing all the civilians they continue to slaughter what seem to me police anti-terrorist squads or military special forces units.
I don't know any terrorist incident, where terrorists operated in units of 3 or 4 shooting civilians outoorsmade so many victimsKilled special forces in vast numbers
The Pakistani Terrorists that shot semi-random people (apparantly they tried to shoot mostly westerners) acted simultaneously, but solitary.
They didn't shoot any special forces or government officials for that matter.
The beslan killers in Southern Russia made hostages first, keeping special forces at arms length.
They executed a few hostages, but hey only started shooting hostages in droves when the special forces started doing the exact same thing.
This happened in the confinement of a building.
The NordOst shootout in Moscow was also a hostage scene inside a building and developed along the same scenario.
Of course, bombing is also a completely different scenario, where you have a good chance of making a fair number of victims.
Probably that doesn't add up to very exciting video games.
Making a fair number of victims by shooting random people in a non-confined environment is actually very hard, let alone shooting special forces outdoors.
so live it up!
The world may be a grim place, but not THAT grim (unless you enjoy slaughtering people in vast numbers in bright daylight, of course).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900945</id>
	<title>We want only POLITICALLY CORRECT reality</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1256759580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reality is fine as long as you do not offend the sensibilities of select group of people, that group shall not include religions defined as bad (read : western ) or groups defined as bad ( read : white ) or sex defined as bad ( read : male ) whose politics are bad ( read : conservatives )</p><p>Actually, we prefer to live in ignorance of how wars are fought when you truly want to win.  We want it sanitized like TV</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality is fine as long as you do not offend the sensibilities of select group of people , that group shall not include religions defined as bad ( read : western ) or groups defined as bad ( read : white ) or sex defined as bad ( read : male ) whose politics are bad ( read : conservatives ) Actually , we prefer to live in ignorance of how wars are fought when you truly want to win .
We want it sanitized like TV</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality is fine as long as you do not offend the sensibilities of select group of people, that group shall not include religions defined as bad (read : western ) or groups defined as bad ( read : white ) or sex defined as bad ( read : male ) whose politics are bad ( read : conservatives )Actually, we prefer to live in ignorance of how wars are fought when you truly want to win.
We want it sanitized like TV</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901597</id>
	<title>Not far enough</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1256762640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until you can get all hannibal lecter on them I see no issue.</p><p>These complainers have ZERO legitimacy as they apparently never have a problem with the BBC, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, HBO, and the rest showing violence, rape, torture, immoral and offensive behavior. Nope they are the first assholes to call the ACLU the moment someone complains about a fecal messiah, a picture of a prophet, or a work of art involving S&amp;M imagery. The very people the demand TOLERANCE, resorting to violence frequently in the name of tolerance,  once again show they are the most hipocritical intolerant SOBs walking Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you can get all hannibal lecter on them I see no issue.These complainers have ZERO legitimacy as they apparently never have a problem with the BBC , NBC , CBS , FOX , ABC , HBO , and the rest showing violence , rape , torture , immoral and offensive behavior .
Nope they are the first assholes to call the ACLU the moment someone complains about a fecal messiah , a picture of a prophet , or a work of art involving S&amp;M imagery .
The very people the demand TOLERANCE , resorting to violence frequently in the name of tolerance , once again show they are the most hipocritical intolerant SOBs walking Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you can get all hannibal lecter on them I see no issue.These complainers have ZERO legitimacy as they apparently never have a problem with the BBC, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, HBO, and the rest showing violence, rape, torture, immoral and offensive behavior.
Nope they are the first assholes to call the ACLU the moment someone complains about a fecal messiah, a picture of a prophet, or a work of art involving S&amp;M imagery.
The very people the demand TOLERANCE, resorting to violence frequently in the name of tolerance,  once again show they are the most hipocritical intolerant SOBs walking Earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900613</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet somehow it is our fault when the terrorists are dressed as civilians and we accidentally kill a civilian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet somehow it is our fault when the terrorists are dressed as civilians and we accidentally kill a civilian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet somehow it is our fault when the terrorists are dressed as civilians and we accidentally kill a civilian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904575</id>
	<title>Taking it too far?</title>
	<author>Rawjava</author>
	<datestamp>1256735640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have had violence before we had video games. Violence is in human nature, it is in the laws of nature, do whatever it takes to survive. Too much of anything can make people violent. Take cooking for example, imagine a a stay at home wife (sorry for not being politically correct) who does nothing but cooks all day for her family, One day she could just snap and kill them all.</p><p>Almost all games today have a story to tell and like most stories they need to be interesting otherwise it would not be great. But at the end of the day thats all they are,  Just stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have had violence before we had video games .
Violence is in human nature , it is in the laws of nature , do whatever it takes to survive .
Too much of anything can make people violent .
Take cooking for example , imagine a a stay at home wife ( sorry for not being politically correct ) who does nothing but cooks all day for her family , One day she could just snap and kill them all.Almost all games today have a story to tell and like most stories they need to be interesting otherwise it would not be great .
But at the end of the day thats all they are , Just stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have had violence before we had video games.
Violence is in human nature, it is in the laws of nature, do whatever it takes to survive.
Too much of anything can make people violent.
Take cooking for example, imagine a a stay at home wife (sorry for not being politically correct) who does nothing but cooks all day for her family, One day she could just snap and kill them all.Almost all games today have a story to tell and like most stories they need to be interesting otherwise it would not be great.
But at the end of the day thats all they are,  Just stories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903027</id>
	<title>It's fine for educated people, but the rest?</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1256726580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. &ndash; Aristotle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it .
   Aristotle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
– Aristotle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900637</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256758260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... how<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ?</p></div><p>Maybe because in GTA its evil evil criminals, because those who protest were too concerned about hidden sex games to complain about GTA.  If you RTFA, you'll notice the scene is clearly remniscent of an actual event, and you play one of the killers.  Kind of insensitive to the victims.  I suppose some real life killings might resemble things players CAN do in GTA, but GTA is pretty exagerated (I've never heard about a carjacker hijacking a helicopter and using the blades to mow down everyone in times square, then spawn a tank and blow up cops).  Moreover, -you- choose to do the killings of innocent people there, wheras in this game, it's part of the plot.</p><p>Some are going to see it as glorifying a real life massacre, fewer are going to see GTA as doing the same thing.</p><p>Furthermore, when exactly did everyone agree killing innocent civilians in GTA was completely a-ok?  I've got no problem with it, but this isn't exactly clear hypocrisy, plenty of the people reacting to this also react to GTA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ? Maybe because in GTA its evil evil criminals , because those who protest were too concerned about hidden sex games to complain about GTA .
If you RTFA , you 'll notice the scene is clearly remniscent of an actual event , and you play one of the killers .
Kind of insensitive to the victims .
I suppose some real life killings might resemble things players CAN do in GTA , but GTA is pretty exagerated ( I 've never heard about a carjacker hijacking a helicopter and using the blades to mow down everyone in times square , then spawn a tank and blow up cops ) .
Moreover , -you- choose to do the killings of innocent people there , wheras in this game , it 's part of the plot.Some are going to see it as glorifying a real life massacre , fewer are going to see GTA as doing the same thing.Furthermore , when exactly did everyone agree killing innocent civilians in GTA was completely a-ok ?
I 've got no problem with it , but this is n't exactly clear hypocrisy , plenty of the people reacting to this also react to GTA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?Maybe because in GTA its evil evil criminals, because those who protest were too concerned about hidden sex games to complain about GTA.
If you RTFA, you'll notice the scene is clearly remniscent of an actual event, and you play one of the killers.
Kind of insensitive to the victims.
I suppose some real life killings might resemble things players CAN do in GTA, but GTA is pretty exagerated (I've never heard about a carjacker hijacking a helicopter and using the blades to mow down everyone in times square, then spawn a tank and blow up cops).
Moreover, -you- choose to do the killings of innocent people there, wheras in this game, it's part of the plot.Some are going to see it as glorifying a real life massacre, fewer are going to see GTA as doing the same thing.Furthermore, when exactly did everyone agree killing innocent civilians in GTA was completely a-ok?
I've got no problem with it, but this isn't exactly clear hypocrisy, plenty of the people reacting to this also react to GTA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901865</id>
	<title>This is also a commentary on security theatre.</title>
	<author>Behrooz</author>
	<datestamp>1256720640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of things going on this video, but I haven't seen anyone notice that the opening act of the massacre involves opening fire on the crowds of people who are... helpfully queued up waiting to go through the metal detectors in an airport.</p><p>We could be using this controversy to point out real, obvious vulnerabilities and tradeoffs that come directly from relying on security theatre to 'protect' our society, but somehow I don't think the newsbags will even notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of things going on this video , but I have n't seen anyone notice that the opening act of the massacre involves opening fire on the crowds of people who are... helpfully queued up waiting to go through the metal detectors in an airport.We could be using this controversy to point out real , obvious vulnerabilities and tradeoffs that come directly from relying on security theatre to 'protect ' our society , but somehow I do n't think the newsbags will even notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of things going on this video, but I haven't seen anyone notice that the opening act of the massacre involves opening fire on the crowds of people who are... helpfully queued up waiting to go through the metal detectors in an airport.We could be using this controversy to point out real, obvious vulnerabilities and tradeoffs that come directly from relying on security theatre to 'protect' our society, but somehow I don't think the newsbags will even notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899929</id>
	<title>Oh great....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This crap better not delay the game!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This crap better not delay the game !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This crap better not delay the game!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901969</id>
	<title>Hypocritical...</title>
	<author>ScottyMcScott</author>
	<datestamp>1256721120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>GTA, Prototype, Infamous, etc, etc all have the killing of innocent civilians. I think what makes MW2 different is context. MW2 establishes the fact that we are 'fighting terrorist' and even the names and places maybe be changed, we all know what and where the game is referring/inferring. This is just a pitiful attempt by the developer to introduce something new in their game to keep it fresh, at the same time drumming up sales from the controversy. Whats worst the hot coffee mod by rockstar or this?

Personally, I'm more excited about bad company 2 that this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>GTA , Prototype , Infamous , etc , etc all have the killing of innocent civilians .
I think what makes MW2 different is context .
MW2 establishes the fact that we are 'fighting terrorist ' and even the names and places maybe be changed , we all know what and where the game is referring/inferring .
This is just a pitiful attempt by the developer to introduce something new in their game to keep it fresh , at the same time drumming up sales from the controversy .
Whats worst the hot coffee mod by rockstar or this ?
Personally , I 'm more excited about bad company 2 that this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GTA, Prototype, Infamous, etc, etc all have the killing of innocent civilians.
I think what makes MW2 different is context.
MW2 establishes the fact that we are 'fighting terrorist' and even the names and places maybe be changed, we all know what and where the game is referring/inferring.
This is just a pitiful attempt by the developer to introduce something new in their game to keep it fresh, at the same time drumming up sales from the controversy.
Whats worst the hot coffee mod by rockstar or this?
Personally, I'm more excited about bad company 2 that this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925</id>
	<title>Good name</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1256755560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like naming it "Modern Warfare" was spot-on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like naming it " Modern Warfare " was spot-on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like naming it "Modern Warfare" was spot-on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901809</id>
	<title>Out of context?</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1256720400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How 'out of context' could it be?  Apparently in this opening scene of the game you're a CIA operative who has infiltrated the terrorist group.  Kind of why you get shot in the face by the badguys at the end.  (Funny, that's exactly what happened at the end of the opening credits of CoD4:MW but it was a lot less 'interactive')  And as far as I'm concerned, it is as it should be.   And if IW ends up having to change it I'll be (more) pissed.  Because you see/do worse shit every time you start up GTA.</p><p>If anything, this is designed to give you incentive to despise the antagonists, which it would do well for individuals less apathetic than myself.  Personally, my 'giving a shit about people kicking puppies' quota was used up by stuff like the assault on NERV HQ in End of Evangelion.  I guess once you see something that makes you think all of humanity being reduced to a vast sea of Tang is not such a bad thing, there's no going back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 'out of context ' could it be ?
Apparently in this opening scene of the game you 're a CIA operative who has infiltrated the terrorist group .
Kind of why you get shot in the face by the badguys at the end .
( Funny , that 's exactly what happened at the end of the opening credits of CoD4 : MW but it was a lot less 'interactive ' ) And as far as I 'm concerned , it is as it should be .
And if IW ends up having to change it I 'll be ( more ) pissed .
Because you see/do worse shit every time you start up GTA.If anything , this is designed to give you incentive to despise the antagonists , which it would do well for individuals less apathetic than myself .
Personally , my 'giving a shit about people kicking puppies ' quota was used up by stuff like the assault on NERV HQ in End of Evangelion .
I guess once you see something that makes you think all of humanity being reduced to a vast sea of Tang is not such a bad thing , there 's no going back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How 'out of context' could it be?
Apparently in this opening scene of the game you're a CIA operative who has infiltrated the terrorist group.
Kind of why you get shot in the face by the badguys at the end.
(Funny, that's exactly what happened at the end of the opening credits of CoD4:MW but it was a lot less 'interactive')  And as far as I'm concerned, it is as it should be.
And if IW ends up having to change it I'll be (more) pissed.
Because you see/do worse shit every time you start up GTA.If anything, this is designed to give you incentive to despise the antagonists, which it would do well for individuals less apathetic than myself.
Personally, my 'giving a shit about people kicking puppies' quota was used up by stuff like the assault on NERV HQ in End of Evangelion.
I guess once you see something that makes you think all of humanity being reduced to a vast sea of Tang is not such a bad thing, there's no going back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903113</id>
	<title>Still viewable at</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1256727000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At time of posting only the first video is viewable:<br><a href="http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forced-kil-civilians-Modern-Warfare-2" title="mapmodnews.com">http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forced-kil-civilians-Modern-Warfare-2</a> [mapmodnews.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At time of posting only the first video is viewable : http : //www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forced-kil-civilians-Modern-Warfare-2 [ mapmodnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At time of posting only the first video is viewable:http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forced-kil-civilians-Modern-Warfare-2 [mapmodnews.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900807</id>
	<title>Gosh</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1256759040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you are not the one doing the shooting? Some people need to STFU and THINK before they speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you are not the one doing the shooting ?
Some people need to STFU and THINK before they speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you are not the one doing the shooting?
Some people need to STFU and THINK before they speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911</id>
	<title>anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... how<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900313</id>
	<title>Re:Good name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Esp. if civilians include women, children, toddlers, pregnant women, elderly, sick etc. Because presenting civilians as a homogenous mass would take away from the gaming pleasure. Here's an idea: why not poll the database of let's say 9/11 victims and superimpose their faces on the models? Or some faces from the Iraqi Shock and Awe campaign? Or mix them up to maximize gaming experience for *everyone*?</p><p>It would combine the joy of being an "army of one" with being a bad guy perfectly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Esp .
if civilians include women , children , toddlers , pregnant women , elderly , sick etc .
Because presenting civilians as a homogenous mass would take away from the gaming pleasure .
Here 's an idea : why not poll the database of let 's say 9/11 victims and superimpose their faces on the models ?
Or some faces from the Iraqi Shock and Awe campaign ?
Or mix them up to maximize gaming experience for * everyone * ? It would combine the joy of being an " army of one " with being a bad guy perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Esp.
if civilians include women, children, toddlers, pregnant women, elderly, sick etc.
Because presenting civilians as a homogenous mass would take away from the gaming pleasure.
Here's an idea: why not poll the database of let's say 9/11 victims and superimpose their faces on the models?
Or some faces from the Iraqi Shock and Awe campaign?
Or mix them up to maximize gaming experience for *everyone*?It would combine the joy of being an "army of one" with being a bad guy perfectly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904099</id>
	<title>Hottest Selling Coogi jean DG Handbag Cheap Online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903903</id>
	<title>Well, war is war.</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1256731380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today, warfare isn't conducted between armies.  It is conducted between armies and civilians, often times with the civilians coming out on top.  Specifically, this probably started in the early 1900s in Ireland.  Gained strenght in Viet Nam where most of the Viet Cong weren't army regulars but were civilian "terrorists".</p><p>The Russians were pretty much thrown out of Afganistan by civilians.  The US is about to suffer the same fate there because there is no longer the will to see anything through.  Iraq is all about the US Army vs. civilians - the Iraqi Army surrendered but the people still fight on.  Odd, though that in both Iraq and Afganistan the main thrust doesn't seem to be attacking US soldiers but killing their fellow civilians.  But such is the fact of war today.</p><p>Israel seems to try to go out of their way not to kill unarmed people and only kill the people that are actually attacking them - while those people are hiding among the unarmed folks just trying to get on with their lives.  The result is, predictably, the Israeli Army is accused of targeting civilians by Arab media.  I suspect that if the US population were given a steady diet of German and Japanese news reports during WW II there would have been a much shorter war with a completely different outcome.  Funny, but the "enemy" news media seems always to have a different view of the various battles, one that deeply conflicts with the reports from the other side.  Israel vs. the Arabs, Viet Nam vs. the US, Russia vs. Afganistan, India vs. Pakistan, etc.  You get the idea.</p><p>Sure, in some views today the US Army is intentionally out there raping, pillaging and killing civilians by remote control.  This popular view should be expected to be reflected in games and popular culture.  Everyone knows that the only reason Iraq was invaded was to secure oil supplies.  Or was it that Saddam insulted George Bush I?  Whatever the reason, most people are convinced today that the US government cannot be trusted and that all war is (a) started by the US, (b) evil, and done to benefit rich fat cat friends of the current president.  So of course there are going to be games and TV shows showing this viewpoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , warfare is n't conducted between armies .
It is conducted between armies and civilians , often times with the civilians coming out on top .
Specifically , this probably started in the early 1900s in Ireland .
Gained strenght in Viet Nam where most of the Viet Cong were n't army regulars but were civilian " terrorists " .The Russians were pretty much thrown out of Afganistan by civilians .
The US is about to suffer the same fate there because there is no longer the will to see anything through .
Iraq is all about the US Army vs. civilians - the Iraqi Army surrendered but the people still fight on .
Odd , though that in both Iraq and Afganistan the main thrust does n't seem to be attacking US soldiers but killing their fellow civilians .
But such is the fact of war today.Israel seems to try to go out of their way not to kill unarmed people and only kill the people that are actually attacking them - while those people are hiding among the unarmed folks just trying to get on with their lives .
The result is , predictably , the Israeli Army is accused of targeting civilians by Arab media .
I suspect that if the US population were given a steady diet of German and Japanese news reports during WW II there would have been a much shorter war with a completely different outcome .
Funny , but the " enemy " news media seems always to have a different view of the various battles , one that deeply conflicts with the reports from the other side .
Israel vs. the Arabs , Viet Nam vs. the US , Russia vs. Afganistan , India vs. Pakistan , etc .
You get the idea.Sure , in some views today the US Army is intentionally out there raping , pillaging and killing civilians by remote control .
This popular view should be expected to be reflected in games and popular culture .
Everyone knows that the only reason Iraq was invaded was to secure oil supplies .
Or was it that Saddam insulted George Bush I ?
Whatever the reason , most people are convinced today that the US government can not be trusted and that all war is ( a ) started by the US , ( b ) evil , and done to benefit rich fat cat friends of the current president .
So of course there are going to be games and TV shows showing this viewpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, warfare isn't conducted between armies.
It is conducted between armies and civilians, often times with the civilians coming out on top.
Specifically, this probably started in the early 1900s in Ireland.
Gained strenght in Viet Nam where most of the Viet Cong weren't army regulars but were civilian "terrorists".The Russians were pretty much thrown out of Afganistan by civilians.
The US is about to suffer the same fate there because there is no longer the will to see anything through.
Iraq is all about the US Army vs. civilians - the Iraqi Army surrendered but the people still fight on.
Odd, though that in both Iraq and Afganistan the main thrust doesn't seem to be attacking US soldiers but killing their fellow civilians.
But such is the fact of war today.Israel seems to try to go out of their way not to kill unarmed people and only kill the people that are actually attacking them - while those people are hiding among the unarmed folks just trying to get on with their lives.
The result is, predictably, the Israeli Army is accused of targeting civilians by Arab media.
I suspect that if the US population were given a steady diet of German and Japanese news reports during WW II there would have been a much shorter war with a completely different outcome.
Funny, but the "enemy" news media seems always to have a different view of the various battles, one that deeply conflicts with the reports from the other side.
Israel vs. the Arabs, Viet Nam vs. the US, Russia vs. Afganistan, India vs. Pakistan, etc.
You get the idea.Sure, in some views today the US Army is intentionally out there raping, pillaging and killing civilians by remote control.
This popular view should be expected to be reflected in games and popular culture.
Everyone knows that the only reason Iraq was invaded was to secure oil supplies.
Or was it that Saddam insulted George Bush I?
Whatever the reason, most people are convinced today that the US government cannot be trusted and that all war is (a) started by the US, (b) evil, and done to benefit rich fat cat friends of the current president.
So of course there are going to be games and TV shows showing this viewpoint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902341</id>
	<title>Virtual civilian programming is weak</title>
	<author>NeMon'ess</author>
	<datestamp>1256722920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they really want the civilians to act like civilians, don't program them to run into the scene from adjacent rooms in the direction of the killers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they really want the civilians to act like civilians , do n't program them to run into the scene from adjacent rooms in the direction of the killers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they really want the civilians to act like civilians, don't program them to run into the scene from adjacent rooms in the direction of the killers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145</id>
	<title>The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1256756340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the words of Robert E. Lee:</p><blockquote><div><p>It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the words of Robert E. Lee : It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the words of Robert E. Lee:It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900471</id>
	<title>Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>quantumplacet</author>
	<datestamp>1256757660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it appears to be both.  from the video, it looks like you are a CIA operative undercover in a terrorist cell, and you join in with them on a terrorist operation.  unclear whether you HAVE to kill the civilians with them, or just CAN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it appears to be both .
from the video , it looks like you are a CIA operative undercover in a terrorist cell , and you join in with them on a terrorist operation .
unclear whether you HAVE to kill the civilians with them , or just CAN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it appears to be both.
from the video, it looks like you are a CIA operative undercover in a terrorist cell, and you join in with them on a terrorist operation.
unclear whether you HAVE to kill the civilians with them, or just CAN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905517</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1256742120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it. No server = no buy!</p></div><p>I kinda agree.  I love multiplayer gaming, but the fact that these greedy game companies can't drop a hair of profit to get us dedicated servers makes me frown.</p><p>I'm still buying MW2 for the single player campaign.  I think MP will be just like COD4:MW... unreliable.  I'll try it and find out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it .
No server = no buy ! I kinda agree .
I love multiplayer gaming , but the fact that these greedy game companies ca n't drop a hair of profit to get us dedicated servers makes me frown.I 'm still buying MW2 for the single player campaign .
I think MP will be just like COD4 : MW... unreliable. I 'll try it and find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it.
No server = no buy!I kinda agree.
I love multiplayer gaming, but the fact that these greedy game companies can't drop a hair of profit to get us dedicated servers makes me frown.I'm still buying MW2 for the single player campaign.
I think MP will be just like COD4:MW... unreliable.  I'll try it and find out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900169</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just free advertising for a crappy game with inherent problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just free advertising for a crappy game with inherent problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just free advertising for a crappy game with inherent problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902375</id>
	<title>Oh purrlease!</title>
	<author>goldcd</author>
	<datestamp>1256723040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a computer game - <i>it's not real.</i> <br>
I mean if we'd all been posting stories of collateral damage in "the real world" for the last umpteen years then maybe we should be allowed to draw parallels.<br>
We haven't - we've lost the right to moral indignation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a computer game - it 's not real .
I mean if we 'd all been posting stories of collateral damage in " the real world " for the last umpteen years then maybe we should be allowed to draw parallels .
We have n't - we 've lost the right to moral indignation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a computer game - it's not real.
I mean if we'd all been posting stories of collateral damage in "the real world" for the last umpteen years then maybe we should be allowed to draw parallels.
We haven't - we've lost the right to moral indignation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29910131</id>
	<title>Re:OK, new policy.</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1256830440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, I agree. Real wars these days are definitely at the most extreme end of the spectrum of justification/necessity, in that they are in no way even close to being necessary and/or justifiable and are realistically tantamount to cultural and economic imperialism at best, and genocide at worst. Just saying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I agree .
Real wars these days are definitely at the most extreme end of the spectrum of justification/necessity , in that they are in no way even close to being necessary and/or justifiable and are realistically tantamount to cultural and economic imperialism at best , and genocide at worst .
Just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I agree.
Real wars these days are definitely at the most extreme end of the spectrum of justification/necessity, in that they are in no way even close to being necessary and/or justifiable and are realistically tantamount to cultural and economic imperialism at best, and genocide at worst.
Just saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905279</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad you can remember 4 months ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad you can remember 4 months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad you can remember 4 months ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904219</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1256733360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fallout 3 allowed you to murder innocent people, wandering nomads, traders, basically anyone (well except kids), even a guy collapsed on the ground begging for water. In fact, any CRPG worth it's salt doesn't balk at the idea that not everyone is a noble minded hero and that innocent civillians are not impervious to all attacks.</p><p>Deus Ex allows you to kill innocent people, even sick people. Hell there is one small part where a guy asks you to kill him.</p><p>All of the Hitman games, Blood Money in particular, contain numerous civillians that you never ever have a reason to kill, yet the game provides no specific punishment for doing so.</p><p>Soldider of Fortune 1 and 2 would automatically kill you if you shot anyone but the bad guys. And it was a worse game for it.</p><p>Strife apparently had the vital signs of all civillians hooked up to the global alarm system and anyone that was killed would set it off, and they always knew it was you. Never did work out how they knew.</p><p>The Grand Theft Auto/Saint's Row games obviously have a police presence to attempt to stop you from killing too many people, which is accurate to the scenario and a entertaining facet to the game.</p><p>Carmageddon anyone?</p><p>I'm sure there are more. I imagine that the majority of older games didn't have civillians because there was only so many system resources to go around and it was a waste to spend them on non-enemy, non-quest related, non-vendor characters</p><p>If anything, this Modern Warfare 2 outrage is another reminded for me to put on my "get off my lawn" t-shirt and pine for a time when gaming  was a secluded pastime seperate from society and it's impressive ability to freak out at anything and everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fallout 3 allowed you to murder innocent people , wandering nomads , traders , basically anyone ( well except kids ) , even a guy collapsed on the ground begging for water .
In fact , any CRPG worth it 's salt does n't balk at the idea that not everyone is a noble minded hero and that innocent civillians are not impervious to all attacks.Deus Ex allows you to kill innocent people , even sick people .
Hell there is one small part where a guy asks you to kill him.All of the Hitman games , Blood Money in particular , contain numerous civillians that you never ever have a reason to kill , yet the game provides no specific punishment for doing so.Soldider of Fortune 1 and 2 would automatically kill you if you shot anyone but the bad guys .
And it was a worse game for it.Strife apparently had the vital signs of all civillians hooked up to the global alarm system and anyone that was killed would set it off , and they always knew it was you .
Never did work out how they knew.The Grand Theft Auto/Saint 's Row games obviously have a police presence to attempt to stop you from killing too many people , which is accurate to the scenario and a entertaining facet to the game.Carmageddon anyone ? I 'm sure there are more .
I imagine that the majority of older games did n't have civillians because there was only so many system resources to go around and it was a waste to spend them on non-enemy , non-quest related , non-vendor charactersIf anything , this Modern Warfare 2 outrage is another reminded for me to put on my " get off my lawn " t-shirt and pine for a time when gaming was a secluded pastime seperate from society and it 's impressive ability to freak out at anything and everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fallout 3 allowed you to murder innocent people, wandering nomads, traders, basically anyone (well except kids), even a guy collapsed on the ground begging for water.
In fact, any CRPG worth it's salt doesn't balk at the idea that not everyone is a noble minded hero and that innocent civillians are not impervious to all attacks.Deus Ex allows you to kill innocent people, even sick people.
Hell there is one small part where a guy asks you to kill him.All of the Hitman games, Blood Money in particular, contain numerous civillians that you never ever have a reason to kill, yet the game provides no specific punishment for doing so.Soldider of Fortune 1 and 2 would automatically kill you if you shot anyone but the bad guys.
And it was a worse game for it.Strife apparently had the vital signs of all civillians hooked up to the global alarm system and anyone that was killed would set it off, and they always knew it was you.
Never did work out how they knew.The Grand Theft Auto/Saint's Row games obviously have a police presence to attempt to stop you from killing too many people, which is accurate to the scenario and a entertaining facet to the game.Carmageddon anyone?I'm sure there are more.
I imagine that the majority of older games didn't have civillians because there was only so many system resources to go around and it was a waste to spend them on non-enemy, non-quest related, non-vendor charactersIf anything, this Modern Warfare 2 outrage is another reminded for me to put on my "get off my lawn" t-shirt and pine for a time when gaming  was a secluded pastime seperate from society and it's impressive ability to freak out at anything and everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904023</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom Fighters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly, what if they are of those evil "gaza stripe civilians" type, hmmm ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly , what if they are of those evil " gaza stripe civilians " type , hmmm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly, what if they are of those evil "gaza stripe civilians" type, hmmm ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900605</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that these sorts of games are played mainly by 10-18 year olds. And also don't forget that the US has been mired in Afghanistan since 2001, and Iraq since 2003.</p><p>The American kids playing these games have spent most of their lives living under the constant fear mongering of the past decade. They have no appreciable experience of life without such mongering.</p><p>To them, killing innocent civilians in the Middle East is a normal way of life. They don't know any better. They don't know that it's wrong. That is what is most scary about this situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that these sorts of games are played mainly by 10-18 year olds .
And also do n't forget that the US has been mired in Afghanistan since 2001 , and Iraq since 2003.The American kids playing these games have spent most of their lives living under the constant fear mongering of the past decade .
They have no appreciable experience of life without such mongering.To them , killing innocent civilians in the Middle East is a normal way of life .
They do n't know any better .
They do n't know that it 's wrong .
That is what is most scary about this situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that these sorts of games are played mainly by 10-18 year olds.
And also don't forget that the US has been mired in Afghanistan since 2001, and Iraq since 2003.The American kids playing these games have spent most of their lives living under the constant fear mongering of the past decade.
They have no appreciable experience of life without such mongering.To them, killing innocent civilians in the Middle East is a normal way of life.
They don't know any better.
They don't know that it's wrong.
That is what is most scary about this situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901349</id>
	<title>Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1256761440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gameplay is just a vehicle to put the story across, I don't really see any contradiction here. If you've played CoD4 it switches between different teams across the world, by the looks of it they've just made this initial scene a playable scene to set the stage for the rest of the game- by putting you in charge of playing these people you get to know how evil they are, afterwards you'll presumably switch back to the Marines, SAS or whoever to begin the battle to catch them and kill them through the rest of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gameplay is just a vehicle to put the story across , I do n't really see any contradiction here .
If you 've played CoD4 it switches between different teams across the world , by the looks of it they 've just made this initial scene a playable scene to set the stage for the rest of the game- by putting you in charge of playing these people you get to know how evil they are , afterwards you 'll presumably switch back to the Marines , SAS or whoever to begin the battle to catch them and kill them through the rest of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gameplay is just a vehicle to put the story across, I don't really see any contradiction here.
If you've played CoD4 it switches between different teams across the world, by the looks of it they've just made this initial scene a playable scene to set the stage for the rest of the game- by putting you in charge of playing these people you get to know how evil they are, afterwards you'll presumably switch back to the Marines, SAS or whoever to begin the battle to catch them and kill them through the rest of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902405</id>
	<title>Uhhh...</title>
	<author>Tiger\_Storms</author>
	<datestamp>1256723160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I love those games, I just have to say that's a bit out of line even for my standards, and I'm used to summoning stuff in sim city and killing countless people (I call it population control) in a game, but to see faces and to be slaughtered they way they were.... just seems wrong to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I love those games , I just have to say that 's a bit out of line even for my standards , and I 'm used to summoning stuff in sim city and killing countless people ( I call it population control ) in a game , but to see faces and to be slaughtered they way they were.... just seems wrong to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I love those games, I just have to say that's a bit out of line even for my standards, and I'm used to summoning stuff in sim city and killing countless people (I call it population control) in a game, but to see faces and to be slaughtered they way they were.... just seems wrong to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904507</id>
	<title>whoever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>modern soldiers kill civilians all the time, its there job! Its how we maintain western dominance. The difference between a terrorist and a soldier is if Fox News is on your side.</p><p>Get educated, stop watching TV.</p><p>All US Soldiers are terrorist by their actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>modern soldiers kill civilians all the time , its there job !
Its how we maintain western dominance .
The difference between a terrorist and a soldier is if Fox News is on your side.Get educated , stop watching TV.All US Soldiers are terrorist by their actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>modern soldiers kill civilians all the time, its there job!
Its how we maintain western dominance.
The difference between a terrorist and a soldier is if Fox News is on your side.Get educated, stop watching TV.All US Soldiers are terrorist by their actions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900771</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1256758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You play the terrorist in this segment.
</p><p>As such, it is a cheap shocker moment, NOT an eye opener to the real difficulties in war. Do you open fire on an enemy location knowing civilians might also be there, or restrain yourself at the risk of the enemy killing you without hesitation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You play the terrorist in this segment .
As such , it is a cheap shocker moment , NOT an eye opener to the real difficulties in war .
Do you open fire on an enemy location knowing civilians might also be there , or restrain yourself at the risk of the enemy killing you without hesitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You play the terrorist in this segment.
As such, it is a cheap shocker moment, NOT an eye opener to the real difficulties in war.
Do you open fire on an enemy location knowing civilians might also be there, or restrain yourself at the risk of the enemy killing you without hesitation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900083</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual event and there's a level of cartoonishness within the character designs and there actions that makes it more easily for an average viewer to separate it as a game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual event and there 's a level of cartoonishness within the character designs and there actions that makes it more easily for an average viewer to separate it as a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual event and there's a level of cartoonishness within the character designs and there actions that makes it more easily for an average viewer to separate it as a game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904067</id>
	<title>sickening</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>, mediocre, incompetent, unsurprising, sub-human</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>, mediocre , incompetent , unsurprising , sub-human</tokentext>
<sentencetext>, mediocre, incompetent, unsurprising, sub-human</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901437</id>
	<title>Re:OK, new policy.</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1256761860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, where are all of those WWII whiners...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , where are all of those WWII whiners.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, where are all of those WWII whiners...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901527</id>
	<title>A Brief Lesson in LoAC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256762340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,</p><p>When i was an intel analyst with an above Top Secret clearance, one of my jobs was talking to aircrew about Law of Armed Conflict.  Here's a sort of LoAC truth table:</p><p>Terrorist/lawful combatant + open field = fair game<br>Religious site = off limits<br>Religious site + Terrorist or other combatant = fair game<br>Orphanage + Dewey Eyed Puppy Farm + Terrorist Cell meeting site = fair game<br>Civilian minding his own business = off limits<br>Civilian throwing rocks = respond with tear gas, rifle butts (proportionate response)<br>Civilian with firearm or other deadly weapon = unlawful combatant = fair game</p><p>Despite fashionable cynicism, our soldiers and their commanders go to great lengths to minimize harm to civilians.  Because "if it bleeds it leads" we hear almost only bad news.  We don't hear much about our efforts to protect property, infrastructure and places of cultural and religious significance.   We don't hear about all the targets we didn't attack because we were trying minimize loss of civilian life or property.  Sometimes we do so at great risk to our military.</p><p>People make mistakes and sometimes with terrible consequences.  Sometimes people lose their shit and do terrible things.  But such cases are the highly publicized minority. Such cases should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law as they cause great harm to morale and our standing in the world.  But it would be nice if people could see the big picture, or know that for every Lynndie England, there are dozens of soldiers, airmen and marines conducting themselves honorably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi,When i was an intel analyst with an above Top Secret clearance , one of my jobs was talking to aircrew about Law of Armed Conflict .
Here 's a sort of LoAC truth table : Terrorist/lawful combatant + open field = fair gameReligious site = off limitsReligious site + Terrorist or other combatant = fair gameOrphanage + Dewey Eyed Puppy Farm + Terrorist Cell meeting site = fair gameCivilian minding his own business = off limitsCivilian throwing rocks = respond with tear gas , rifle butts ( proportionate response ) Civilian with firearm or other deadly weapon = unlawful combatant = fair gameDespite fashionable cynicism , our soldiers and their commanders go to great lengths to minimize harm to civilians .
Because " if it bleeds it leads " we hear almost only bad news .
We do n't hear much about our efforts to protect property , infrastructure and places of cultural and religious significance .
We do n't hear about all the targets we did n't attack because we were trying minimize loss of civilian life or property .
Sometimes we do so at great risk to our military.People make mistakes and sometimes with terrible consequences .
Sometimes people lose their shit and do terrible things .
But such cases are the highly publicized minority .
Such cases should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law as they cause great harm to morale and our standing in the world .
But it would be nice if people could see the big picture , or know that for every Lynndie England , there are dozens of soldiers , airmen and marines conducting themselves honorably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,When i was an intel analyst with an above Top Secret clearance, one of my jobs was talking to aircrew about Law of Armed Conflict.
Here's a sort of LoAC truth table:Terrorist/lawful combatant + open field = fair gameReligious site = off limitsReligious site + Terrorist or other combatant = fair gameOrphanage + Dewey Eyed Puppy Farm + Terrorist Cell meeting site = fair gameCivilian minding his own business = off limitsCivilian throwing rocks = respond with tear gas, rifle butts (proportionate response)Civilian with firearm or other deadly weapon = unlawful combatant = fair gameDespite fashionable cynicism, our soldiers and their commanders go to great lengths to minimize harm to civilians.
Because "if it bleeds it leads" we hear almost only bad news.
We don't hear much about our efforts to protect property, infrastructure and places of cultural and religious significance.
We don't hear about all the targets we didn't attack because we were trying minimize loss of civilian life or property.
Sometimes we do so at great risk to our military.People make mistakes and sometimes with terrible consequences.
Sometimes people lose their shit and do terrible things.
But such cases are the highly publicized minority.
Such cases should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law as they cause great harm to morale and our standing in the world.
But it would be nice if people could see the big picture, or know that for every Lynndie England, there are dozens of soldiers, airmen and marines conducting themselves honorably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900477</id>
	<title>Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>electricbern</author>
	<datestamp>1256757720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?</p></div><p>Are you aiming for the truth or for the streisand effect?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which one is it ( or is it both somehow ) ? Are you aiming for the truth or for the streisand effect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?Are you aiming for the truth or for the streisand effect?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900299</id>
	<title>dedicated</title>
	<author>ivesceneenough</author>
	<datestamp>1256757000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am more offended that they took out the option for dedicated servers on the PC version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am more offended that they took out the option for dedicated servers on the PC version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am more offended that they took out the option for dedicated servers on the PC version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900979</id>
	<title>Oh, and honestly...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1256759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who gives a fuck?</p><p>Don't like it? Don't buy it.<br>Do like it? Buy it.<br>Do like it but if they remove killing civilians you will not buy it because it is dishonest/not realistic? Seek professional help.<br>Do/don't like it but "think of the children!" Game was not intended for kids. YOU go and think of YOUR children.<br>Do like it but you think that its nothr move by govmnt to take ya guns an freedums? You sir, are insane. Drop whatever you are doing and check yourself into a psychiatric institution. NOW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a fuck ? Do n't like it ?
Do n't buy it.Do like it ?
Buy it.Do like it but if they remove killing civilians you will not buy it because it is dishonest/not realistic ?
Seek professional help.Do/do n't like it but " think of the children !
" Game was not intended for kids .
YOU go and think of YOUR children.Do like it but you think that its nothr move by govmnt to take ya guns an freedums ?
You sir , are insane .
Drop whatever you are doing and check yourself into a psychiatric institution .
NOW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a fuck?Don't like it?
Don't buy it.Do like it?
Buy it.Do like it but if they remove killing civilians you will not buy it because it is dishonest/not realistic?
Seek professional help.Do/don't like it but "think of the children!
" Game was not intended for kids.
YOU go and think of YOUR children.Do like it but you think that its nothr move by govmnt to take ya guns an freedums?
You sir, are insane.
Drop whatever you are doing and check yourself into a psychiatric institution.
NOW!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901195</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1256760780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah I think that's the crux of it. One of the best modern war dramas I've ever seen on TV was "Over there", but it was cancelled after only 12 episodes - too close to the truth for people's liking was also the reason I assume it was cancelled as it really did do quite well to show the brutality of the situation in Iraq in most episodes.</p><p>It seems a lot of people are happy for their country to go to war, as long as they don't have to hear about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I think that 's the crux of it .
One of the best modern war dramas I 've ever seen on TV was " Over there " , but it was cancelled after only 12 episodes - too close to the truth for people 's liking was also the reason I assume it was cancelled as it really did do quite well to show the brutality of the situation in Iraq in most episodes.It seems a lot of people are happy for their country to go to war , as long as they do n't have to hear about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I think that's the crux of it.
One of the best modern war dramas I've ever seen on TV was "Over there", but it was cancelled after only 12 episodes - too close to the truth for people's liking was also the reason I assume it was cancelled as it really did do quite well to show the brutality of the situation in Iraq in most episodes.It seems a lot of people are happy for their country to go to war, as long as they don't have to hear about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900215</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1256756640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it. No server = no buy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it .
No server = no buy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it.
No server = no buy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902057</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1256721540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?</p></div><p>Because play, at all levels, is based on training for the future.  Puppies play fight, chase, hunt, and hump because those are all things they need to be able to do as adults.  Humans are the same way.  We play at running a house, at being parents, at hunting/escaping, and yes, we play at warfare.  Even organized sports, for the most part, boil down to ritualized tribal warfare or atleast competition.</p><p>What people don't realize is that playing violent video games today is <b>no</b> different from playing cowboys and indians 20 years ago.  It's done to satisfy the same instincts and desires, which is to prepare the brain for situations that are rare, but dangerous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My question is this : why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us ? Because play , at all levels , is based on training for the future .
Puppies play fight , chase , hunt , and hump because those are all things they need to be able to do as adults .
Humans are the same way .
We play at running a house , at being parents , at hunting/escaping , and yes , we play at warfare .
Even organized sports , for the most part , boil down to ritualized tribal warfare or atleast competition.What people do n't realize is that playing violent video games today is no different from playing cowboys and indians 20 years ago .
It 's done to satisfy the same instincts and desires , which is to prepare the brain for situations that are rare , but dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?Because play, at all levels, is based on training for the future.
Puppies play fight, chase, hunt, and hump because those are all things they need to be able to do as adults.
Humans are the same way.
We play at running a house, at being parents, at hunting/escaping, and yes, we play at warfare.
Even organized sports, for the most part, boil down to ritualized tribal warfare or atleast competition.What people don't realize is that playing violent video games today is no different from playing cowboys and indians 20 years ago.
It's done to satisfy the same instincts and desires, which is to prepare the brain for situations that are rare, but dangerous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903985</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1256731920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good. What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her. One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?"</p><p>I suppose that might come up some day, but it is not in the same realm as the game being discussed.  Sure, someone out there might play the game and get off on the killing.  But its purpose is to make you sick/uncomfortable/mad and make you want to take out the terrorist cell that you are infiltrating.</p><p>In other words, there is some 'greater good' that a player can attempt to accomplish in the game.  In order to do so, they might have to do distasteful things along the way, much like a real war.</p><p>Your example above, of a game that perhaps has no purpose other than violence, is already on the market.  Any first person shooter, Grand Theft, etc.. can all be played just to kill/be violent.  Most have story lines that you can pretend to be good, or you can ignore them and just kill.</p><p>Aggression/Dominance and its resulting violence is pretty much a natural tendency in most mammals.  People have varying degrees of aggression, most of which result in legal outcomes (being passive aggressive, yelling, storming off, etc..).  Having that aggression built in though, like any other human tendency (sexual attraction for example), is a valid area of fantasy.</p><p>Just like someone might fantasize about being with a super model due to an innate desire for sex, I can see it being perfectly healthy to explore a level of aggression that you'd never conceive of carrying out in real life.  Various people enjoy more or less extreme exploration of fantasy though, and I'd care to wager that very very few people would play your fictional rape game as described.  It would just be too extreme, whereas, "killing the bad guy" or even "killing some good guys to get to a bunch of bad guys" is more in line with most peoples aggressive fantasies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Example : most people do n't think that brutally raping a young girl ( say , 8 years old ) and then slaughtering her is particularly good .
What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her .
One is doing it in real life , one is doing it virtually ; both in order to do it virtually , there must be some desire to " do it , " right ?
" I suppose that might come up some day , but it is not in the same realm as the game being discussed .
Sure , someone out there might play the game and get off on the killing .
But its purpose is to make you sick/uncomfortable/mad and make you want to take out the terrorist cell that you are infiltrating.In other words , there is some 'greater good ' that a player can attempt to accomplish in the game .
In order to do so , they might have to do distasteful things along the way , much like a real war.Your example above , of a game that perhaps has no purpose other than violence , is already on the market .
Any first person shooter , Grand Theft , etc.. can all be played just to kill/be violent .
Most have story lines that you can pretend to be good , or you can ignore them and just kill.Aggression/Dominance and its resulting violence is pretty much a natural tendency in most mammals .
People have varying degrees of aggression , most of which result in legal outcomes ( being passive aggressive , yelling , storming off , etc.. ) .
Having that aggression built in though , like any other human tendency ( sexual attraction for example ) , is a valid area of fantasy.Just like someone might fantasize about being with a super model due to an innate desire for sex , I can see it being perfectly healthy to explore a level of aggression that you 'd never conceive of carrying out in real life .
Various people enjoy more or less extreme exploration of fantasy though , and I 'd care to wager that very very few people would play your fictional rape game as described .
It would just be too extreme , whereas , " killing the bad guy " or even " killing some good guys to get to a bunch of bad guys " is more in line with most peoples aggressive fantasies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good.
What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her.
One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?
"I suppose that might come up some day, but it is not in the same realm as the game being discussed.
Sure, someone out there might play the game and get off on the killing.
But its purpose is to make you sick/uncomfortable/mad and make you want to take out the terrorist cell that you are infiltrating.In other words, there is some 'greater good' that a player can attempt to accomplish in the game.
In order to do so, they might have to do distasteful things along the way, much like a real war.Your example above, of a game that perhaps has no purpose other than violence, is already on the market.
Any first person shooter, Grand Theft, etc.. can all be played just to kill/be violent.
Most have story lines that you can pretend to be good, or you can ignore them and just kill.Aggression/Dominance and its resulting violence is pretty much a natural tendency in most mammals.
People have varying degrees of aggression, most of which result in legal outcomes (being passive aggressive, yelling, storming off, etc..).
Having that aggression built in though, like any other human tendency (sexual attraction for example), is a valid area of fantasy.Just like someone might fantasize about being with a super model due to an innate desire for sex, I can see it being perfectly healthy to explore a level of aggression that you'd never conceive of carrying out in real life.
Various people enjoy more or less extreme exploration of fantasy though, and I'd care to wager that very very few people would play your fictional rape game as described.
It would just be too extreme, whereas, "killing the bad guy" or even "killing some good guys to get to a bunch of bad guys" is more in line with most peoples aggressive fantasies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900551</id>
	<title>Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1256757960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, from <a href="http://ps3.ign.com/articles/103/1039381p1.html" title="ign.com">IGN</a> [ign.com] (spoilers!!):<p><div class="quote"><p>Further Analysis
From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video, the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A. operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel. The loading screen, which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions, begins with a C.I.A. logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game's antagonist, Vladimir Makarov, leads. The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A. text directly below the logo, which is then extended and followed by illegible words, presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction. Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify, however, the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van, and says "Here's your message," almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized.</p></div><p>So you are undercover, and can probably get away with not shooting anyone yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , from IGN [ ign.com ] ( spoilers ! !
) : Further Analysis From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video , the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A .
operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel .
The loading screen , which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions , begins with a C.I.A .
logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game 's antagonist , Vladimir Makarov , leads .
The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A .
text directly below the logo , which is then extended and followed by illegible words , presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction .
Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify , however , the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van , and says " Here 's your message , " almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized.So you are undercover , and can probably get away with not shooting anyone yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, from IGN [ign.com] (spoilers!!
):Further Analysis
From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video, the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A.
operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel.
The loading screen, which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions, begins with a C.I.A.
logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game's antagonist, Vladimir Makarov, leads.
The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A.
text directly below the logo, which is then extended and followed by illegible words, presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction.
Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify, however, the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van, and says "Here's your message," almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized.So you are undercover, and can probably get away with not shooting anyone yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29912595</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256839380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.<br>If we knew the true evils happening from our enemies, instead of the sugar coated depictions we get, more people would support the destruction of that evil and support stronger means to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree.If we knew the true evils happening from our enemies , instead of the sugar coated depictions we get , more people would support the destruction of that evil and support stronger means to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.If we knew the true evils happening from our enemies, instead of the sugar coated depictions we get, more people would support the destruction of that evil and support stronger means to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904511</id>
	<title>Re:Content Warning...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In one paragraph you complain about parts of the game being spoiled, and in the next you spoiled one of the surprises in CoD4 for those who haven't played it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In one paragraph you complain about parts of the game being spoiled , and in the next you spoiled one of the surprises in CoD4 for those who have n't played it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In one paragraph you complain about parts of the game being spoiled, and in the next you spoiled one of the surprises in CoD4 for those who haven't played it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900657</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like modern warfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A person could also argue that sanitizing games is a good idea. This has been discussed before on Slashdot. As you come closer to precisely imitating real life, it becomes more and more difficult for the player to differentiate between real life and the game world, i.e. the player presumably becomes "numb" to the violence.  That increases the likelihood the player will cause real world harm. <i>That</i> is why it's reasonable to sanitize a game or any media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A person could also argue that sanitizing games is a good idea .
This has been discussed before on Slashdot .
As you come closer to precisely imitating real life , it becomes more and more difficult for the player to differentiate between real life and the game world , i.e .
the player presumably becomes " numb " to the violence .
That increases the likelihood the player will cause real world harm .
That is why it 's reasonable to sanitize a game or any media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A person could also argue that sanitizing games is a good idea.
This has been discussed before on Slashdot.
As you come closer to precisely imitating real life, it becomes more and more difficult for the player to differentiate between real life and the game world, i.e.
the player presumably becomes "numb" to the violence.
That increases the likelihood the player will cause real world harm.
That is why it's reasonable to sanitize a game or any media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905337</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True. Just because you want to eat the burger doesn't mean you want to meet the cow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
Just because you want to eat the burger does n't mean you want to meet the cow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
Just because you want to eat the burger doesn't mean you want to meet the cow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901885</id>
	<title>Now I'm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256720760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...more excited than ever for this game.  It is a Game.  If I'm shooting civilians as a terrorist undercover so be it.  I've blown away cops, zombies, Nazis, criminals, Nazi-zombies...some mall shoppers bring em on.  Mature...means don't buy it for your kiddies.  As an adult, I want mature games with mature themes.  Hell in Fallout, you can nuke a whole city kids and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...more excited than ever for this game .
It is a Game .
If I 'm shooting civilians as a terrorist undercover so be it .
I 've blown away cops , zombies , Nazis , criminals , Nazi-zombies...some mall shoppers bring em on .
Mature...means do n't buy it for your kiddies .
As an adult , I want mature games with mature themes .
Hell in Fallout , you can nuke a whole city kids and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...more excited than ever for this game.
It is a Game.
If I'm shooting civilians as a terrorist undercover so be it.
I've blown away cops, zombies, Nazis, criminals, Nazi-zombies...some mall shoppers bring em on.
Mature...means don't buy it for your kiddies.
As an adult, I want mature games with mature themes.
Hell in Fallout, you can nuke a whole city kids and all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902521</id>
	<title>Re:Heads Up and Activision Statement</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1256723880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how many people really remember this, but there was a sequence in GTA: Vice City in which you had to chase down and kill the wife of some kingpin while she begged for mercy. Playing through this sequence had a real, visceral effect on me. I hated the fact that I *had* to chase down and kill an innocent person in order to advance the storyline. I was sick to my stomach listening to her pleas for help and mercy, even if she was just numbers on a machine.</p><p>I imagine that Activision had that exact intent when they created this portion of the game. They wanted you to do this in order to force you to have these feelings of hatred for what you were doing. They wanted you to feel "true evil" and make you hate it.</p><p>On a side note, even though I played through this scene, I still have yet to chase down and kill someone's wife in real life and I have no intent to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how many people really remember this , but there was a sequence in GTA : Vice City in which you had to chase down and kill the wife of some kingpin while she begged for mercy .
Playing through this sequence had a real , visceral effect on me .
I hated the fact that I * had * to chase down and kill an innocent person in order to advance the storyline .
I was sick to my stomach listening to her pleas for help and mercy , even if she was just numbers on a machine.I imagine that Activision had that exact intent when they created this portion of the game .
They wanted you to do this in order to force you to have these feelings of hatred for what you were doing .
They wanted you to feel " true evil " and make you hate it.On a side note , even though I played through this scene , I still have yet to chase down and kill someone 's wife in real life and I have no intent to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how many people really remember this, but there was a sequence in GTA: Vice City in which you had to chase down and kill the wife of some kingpin while she begged for mercy.
Playing through this sequence had a real, visceral effect on me.
I hated the fact that I *had* to chase down and kill an innocent person in order to advance the storyline.
I was sick to my stomach listening to her pleas for help and mercy, even if she was just numbers on a machine.I imagine that Activision had that exact intent when they created this portion of the game.
They wanted you to do this in order to force you to have these feelings of hatred for what you were doing.
They wanted you to feel "true evil" and make you hate it.On a side note, even though I played through this scene, I still have yet to chase down and kill someone's wife in real life and I have no intent to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905481</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1256741880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we were forced to see all of the civilians that have been 'casualties of war' in latest efforts to 'secure democracy', people would demand we back out.</p><p>War is ugly; civilians are fortunate not to experience the savage products of their government's action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we were forced to see all of the civilians that have been 'casualties of war ' in latest efforts to 'secure democracy ' , people would demand we back out.War is ugly ; civilians are fortunate not to experience the savage products of their government 's action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we were forced to see all of the civilians that have been 'casualties of war' in latest efforts to 'secure democracy', people would demand we back out.War is ugly; civilians are fortunate not to experience the savage products of their government's action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900813</id>
	<title>Original American Terrorists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adams, Jefferson, Washington, etc.</p><p>Back in the day when gentlemen met on a battle field while generals sipped Tea, Americans were hiding in the bushes with long rifles.</p><p>Now, 200 years later and a half a world away much of the same thing is going on.</p><p>The same imperialism that we fought against, we more or less have (How many countries have US Army bases?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adams , Jefferson , Washington , etc.Back in the day when gentlemen met on a battle field while generals sipped Tea , Americans were hiding in the bushes with long rifles.Now , 200 years later and a half a world away much of the same thing is going on.The same imperialism that we fought against , we more or less have ( How many countries have US Army bases ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adams, Jefferson, Washington, etc.Back in the day when gentlemen met on a battle field while generals sipped Tea, Americans were hiding in the bushes with long rifles.Now, 200 years later and a half a world away much of the same thing is going on.The same imperialism that we fought against, we more or less have (How many countries have US Army bases?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902153</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure If folks like yourself had any say in the matter "hippie idiots" like myself would probably be better off living elsewhere in some "dictatorship".  Now that's something to think about....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure If folks like yourself had any say in the matter " hippie idiots " like myself would probably be better off living elsewhere in some " dictatorship " .
Now that 's something to think about... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure If folks like yourself had any say in the matter "hippie idiots" like myself would probably be better off living elsewhere in some "dictatorship".
Now that's something to think about....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900155</id>
	<title>Modern Warfare</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1256756400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Post-Modern Warfare<br>Modern Warfare<br>Romantic Age Warfare<br>Victorian Era Warfare<br>Industrial Revolution Era Warfare<br>Age of Enlightenment Warfare<br>Age of Discovery Warfare<br>Ottoman Empire Warfare<br>Middle Ages Warfare<br>Dark Age Warfare<br>Roman Empire Warfare<br>Ancient Greece Warfare<br>New Kingdom Warfare<br>Old Kingdom Warfare<br>Mesopotamian Warfare</p><p>Obviously this sort of thing is a modern problem due to our culture of violence.  It's only recently that our soldiers and the people they were fighting resorted to detestable acts in the furtherance of their causes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Post-Modern WarfareModern WarfareRomantic Age WarfareVictorian Era WarfareIndustrial Revolution Era WarfareAge of Enlightenment WarfareAge of Discovery WarfareOttoman Empire WarfareMiddle Ages WarfareDark Age WarfareRoman Empire WarfareAncient Greece WarfareNew Kingdom WarfareOld Kingdom WarfareMesopotamian WarfareObviously this sort of thing is a modern problem due to our culture of violence .
It 's only recently that our soldiers and the people they were fighting resorted to detestable acts in the furtherance of their causes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Post-Modern WarfareModern WarfareRomantic Age WarfareVictorian Era WarfareIndustrial Revolution Era WarfareAge of Enlightenment WarfareAge of Discovery WarfareOttoman Empire WarfareMiddle Ages WarfareDark Age WarfareRoman Empire WarfareAncient Greece WarfareNew Kingdom WarfareOld Kingdom WarfareMesopotamian WarfareObviously this sort of thing is a modern problem due to our culture of violence.
It's only recently that our soldiers and the people they were fighting resorted to detestable acts in the furtherance of their causes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903157</id>
	<title>But... don't show a nipple!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As showing a nipple or add nudity to a game will definitely make it be rated A for adult only and thus not sellable.</p><p>For the people who think this footage is not something to argue about because it's a 'game', consider a game where you have to shove as much jews as possible in a gas chamber. Yes, horrific and the lowest possible taste possible, but it's for the sake of the argument: it's then too just 'a game', however people will (and rightfully so) be horrified and declare it unacceptable.</p><p>What I then wonder is: why is this 'a game' and 'fantasy', and another example 'unacceptable' ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As showing a nipple or add nudity to a game will definitely make it be rated A for adult only and thus not sellable.For the people who think this footage is not something to argue about because it 's a 'game ' , consider a game where you have to shove as much jews as possible in a gas chamber .
Yes , horrific and the lowest possible taste possible , but it 's for the sake of the argument : it 's then too just 'a game ' , however people will ( and rightfully so ) be horrified and declare it unacceptable.What I then wonder is : why is this 'a game ' and 'fantasy ' , and another example 'unacceptable ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As showing a nipple or add nudity to a game will definitely make it be rated A for adult only and thus not sellable.For the people who think this footage is not something to argue about because it's a 'game', consider a game where you have to shove as much jews as possible in a gas chamber.
Yes, horrific and the lowest possible taste possible, but it's for the sake of the argument: it's then too just 'a game', however people will (and rightfully so) be horrified and declare it unacceptable.What I then wonder is: why is this 'a game' and 'fantasy', and another example 'unacceptable' ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903541</id>
	<title>Re:The critics need to hear</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1256729040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe war simulations provide an interesting environment that is not encountered in other places.  I for example enjoyed playing paintball due to the idea of sneaking around trying to target people.  It is like playing tag or something except you have a ranged tagging mechanism.  I have also enjoyed playing so called wide games which are similar but usually involve actually reaching the person.  Having a paintball gun adds depth to the game since I can run fairly fast so in tag slow people are at a major disadvantage whereas with paintball they can close a trap over a much larger area because of the extra range.  I don't personally enjoy the fact that I am hurting people slightly (although not much) but this is fairly unavoidable unless you go for laser tag which is not quite the same due to a laser going in a perfect line and only being able to hit certain targets.</p><p>Similarly RTS games are more of an analogue to chess in my view.  You command pieces which wipe out other pieces from the map.  You could fairly effectively play an RTS which was not set in a war situation but often it is nice to have some kind of storyline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe war simulations provide an interesting environment that is not encountered in other places .
I for example enjoyed playing paintball due to the idea of sneaking around trying to target people .
It is like playing tag or something except you have a ranged tagging mechanism .
I have also enjoyed playing so called wide games which are similar but usually involve actually reaching the person .
Having a paintball gun adds depth to the game since I can run fairly fast so in tag slow people are at a major disadvantage whereas with paintball they can close a trap over a much larger area because of the extra range .
I do n't personally enjoy the fact that I am hurting people slightly ( although not much ) but this is fairly unavoidable unless you go for laser tag which is not quite the same due to a laser going in a perfect line and only being able to hit certain targets.Similarly RTS games are more of an analogue to chess in my view .
You command pieces which wipe out other pieces from the map .
You could fairly effectively play an RTS which was not set in a war situation but often it is nice to have some kind of storyline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe war simulations provide an interesting environment that is not encountered in other places.
I for example enjoyed playing paintball due to the idea of sneaking around trying to target people.
It is like playing tag or something except you have a ranged tagging mechanism.
I have also enjoyed playing so called wide games which are similar but usually involve actually reaching the person.
Having a paintball gun adds depth to the game since I can run fairly fast so in tag slow people are at a major disadvantage whereas with paintball they can close a trap over a much larger area because of the extra range.
I don't personally enjoy the fact that I am hurting people slightly (although not much) but this is fairly unavoidable unless you go for laser tag which is not quite the same due to a laser going in a perfect line and only being able to hit certain targets.Similarly RTS games are more of an analogue to chess in my view.
You command pieces which wipe out other pieces from the map.
You could fairly effectively play an RTS which was not set in a war situation but often it is nice to have some kind of storyline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423</id>
	<title>Content Warning...</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1256757540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing. I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content. Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings. If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it. A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it. It loses emotional impact that way.<br> <br>Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war. A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered. Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing .
I understand where they 're coming from on this , but if it 's rated M on the box , I expect M-rated content .
Do n't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings .
If it 's really that bad , give me the option when I start a new game to skip " objectionable content " and then do n't bother me again with it .
A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it .
It loses emotional impact that way .
Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games ( at least the installments made by Infinity Ward ) , and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war .
A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered .
Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you 'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was " potentially disturbing " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing.
I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content.
Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings.
If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it.
A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it.
It loses emotional impact that way.
Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war.
A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered.
Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29913383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29907051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29907341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29910131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29912595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29908245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1634218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29908245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29910131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29912595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901107
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903869
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901601
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902057
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29905951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29907341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29903985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29907051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29899933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29913383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29902555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29904067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1634218.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29900483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1634218.29901139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
