<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_2340204</id>
	<title>Iraq Swears By Dowsing Rod Bomb Detector</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1257340560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jggimi writes <i>"According to the  New York Times, more than fifteen hundred remote sensing devices have been sold to Iraq's Ministry of the Interior, at prices ranging from $16,500 to $60,000 each.  The devices are used for bomb and weapon detection at checkpoints, and have no battery or other power source. Sounds great, but according to a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, they work on the same principle as a Ouija board &mdash; the power of suggestion. He described the wand as nothing more than an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html">explosives divining rod</a>. Even though the device has been debunked by the US Military, the US Department of Justice, and even Sandia National Laboratories, the Iraqis are thrilled with the devices.  'Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jggimi writes " According to the New York Times , more than fifteen hundred remote sensing devices have been sold to Iraq 's Ministry of the Interior , at prices ranging from $ 16,500 to $ 60,000 each .
The devices are used for bomb and weapon detection at checkpoints , and have no battery or other power source .
Sounds great , but according to a retired United States Air Force officer , Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack , they work on the same principle as a Ouija board    the power of suggestion .
He described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod .
Even though the device has been debunked by the US Military , the US Department of Justice , and even Sandia National Laboratories , the Iraqis are thrilled with the devices .
'Whether it 's magic or scientific , what I care about is it detects bombs, ' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri , head of the Ministry of the Interior 's General Directorate for Combating Explosives .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jggimi writes "According to the  New York Times, more than fifteen hundred remote sensing devices have been sold to Iraq's Ministry of the Interior, at prices ranging from $16,500 to $60,000 each.
The devices are used for bomb and weapon detection at checkpoints, and have no battery or other power source.
Sounds great, but according to a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, they work on the same principle as a Ouija board — the power of suggestion.
He described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod.
Even though the device has been debunked by the US Military, the US Department of Justice, and even Sandia National Laboratories, the Iraqis are thrilled with the devices.
'Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996198</id>
	<title>MythBusters</title>
	<author>TheOrangeMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257443220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see : Who has easy access to explosives and could do some scientific testing on said devices, apply a little critical thinking and discredit the whole concept to a relatively large audience... I wonder?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see : Who has easy access to explosives and could do some scientific testing on said devices , apply a little critical thinking and discredit the whole concept to a relatively large audience... I wonder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see : Who has easy access to explosives and could do some scientific testing on said devices, apply a little critical thinking and discredit the whole concept to a relatively large audience... I wonder?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989912</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1257003180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It isn't like anyone in the US uses dousing rods to find water. Oh wait?</p><p>Actually we used dowsing to find fresh water when I was a kid and I still vividly remember that day.  My dad thought it was a bunch of bullshit too until the Y stick mom was holding turned so hard that it tore the bark right off and started to cut both his hands - that's how tight of a grip my Dad was holding on.</p><p>Considering we were adjacent to a potash salt lake, I was surprised it worked too.  For some reason it only seemed to work really well with a Y willow stick, and using the right amount of push outwards.</p><p>There was an even mention of dowsing on Quirks and Quarks with Jay Ingram on CBC radio a few years later.  Kind of nice to know we weren't the only crazy ones.</p><p>--<br><i>Dark Matter</i> by any other name is still <b>Ether</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It is n't like anyone in the US uses dousing rods to find water .
Oh wait ? Actually we used dowsing to find fresh water when I was a kid and I still vividly remember that day .
My dad thought it was a bunch of bullshit too until the Y stick mom was holding turned so hard that it tore the bark right off and started to cut both his hands - that 's how tight of a grip my Dad was holding on.Considering we were adjacent to a potash salt lake , I was surprised it worked too .
For some reason it only seemed to work really well with a Y willow stick , and using the right amount of push outwards.There was an even mention of dowsing on Quirks and Quarks with Jay Ingram on CBC radio a few years later .
Kind of nice to know we were n't the only crazy ones.--Dark Matter by any other name is still Ether</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It isn't like anyone in the US uses dousing rods to find water.
Oh wait?Actually we used dowsing to find fresh water when I was a kid and I still vividly remember that day.
My dad thought it was a bunch of bullshit too until the Y stick mom was holding turned so hard that it tore the bark right off and started to cut both his hands - that's how tight of a grip my Dad was holding on.Considering we were adjacent to a potash salt lake, I was surprised it worked too.
For some reason it only seemed to work really well with a Y willow stick, and using the right amount of push outwards.There was an even mention of dowsing on Quirks and Quarks with Jay Ingram on CBC radio a few years later.
Kind of nice to know we weren't the only crazy ones.--Dark Matter by any other name is still Ether</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990022</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1257003960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> You really have got it way wrong. Basically the device will allow you to pick up the highest possible purchasing commissions, working on say up to fifty percent between $8,250 and $30,000 all tax free and in cash, due to it's negligible manufacturing costs. Warning the only thing the device will never detect is bull shit, else the antennae would immediately wrap itself around the device, on the plus side the device is guaranteed to detect scientologists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really have got it way wrong .
Basically the device will allow you to pick up the highest possible purchasing commissions , working on say up to fifty percent between $ 8,250 and $ 30,000 all tax free and in cash , due to it 's negligible manufacturing costs .
Warning the only thing the device will never detect is bull shit , else the antennae would immediately wrap itself around the device , on the plus side the device is guaranteed to detect scientologists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You really have got it way wrong.
Basically the device will allow you to pick up the highest possible purchasing commissions, working on say up to fifty percent between $8,250 and $30,000 all tax free and in cash, due to it's negligible manufacturing costs.
Warning the only thing the device will never detect is bull shit, else the antennae would immediately wrap itself around the device, on the plus side the device is guaranteed to detect scientologists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990558</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A couple of observations and comments:
<br> <br>
1) You clearly haven't seen very many good magician's tricks.  I was obsessed with magic tricks when I was younger and learned a lot of basic moves and techniques.  But even with that there are some really, really simple tricks that use very simple props, or no props at all, that seem impossible and that I have no idea how to do.  So when you say "In my mind there was simply no way you could \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_" all I see is a huge red flag.  It's called the Argument from Personal Incredulity, and it's a blatant logical fallacy.  Someone who is not overly familiar with magic tricks, as I think might apply in your case, can see no way this effect could have been achieved without the claim being true.  Someone who is moderately familiar with performance magic, on the other hand, can imagine quite easily that it could be the result of an illusion.
<br> <br>
2) As for your "straining, curving, living thing" diving at the ground, I have to say, I'm shocked and the credulity of this statement.  You think you can't make a branch held at two points bend and curve? Very small muscle movement is all it takes to make a freshly cut (and therefore flexible) branch move quite a lot, so it could seem like the branch was moving while the hands holding it stayed still.  Combine that with the fact that it's been some time since this happened, I'd say it's entirely likely that you saw either an ideomotor effect or a skilled performance, and exaggerated it in your memory to the point where you remember it in a very dramatic light.  Like I said, I used to study magic, and a huge amount of that is knowing how to take advantage of the remarkable human ability to remember things that didn't actually happen, or misremember things from how they really went down.
<br> <br>
3) Just for the record, skeptical and cynical are not sister mindsets.  I am so sick of people equating them, as I am actually quite idealistic on the whole, while also maintaining a healthy skeptical outlook. Skepticism only seems like a downer attitude when it pops someone's bubble by pointing out something they really want to be true isn't actually, and they get all petulant and bent out of shape about it.
<br> <br>
It is funny you mentioned magician's tricks, though.  You know, there's a reason there's so much overlap between skeptics and magicians.  It's because magicians know how easy it is to do "impossible" things, and don't accept claims based solely on how something "appears" to happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of observations and comments : 1 ) You clearly have n't seen very many good magician 's tricks .
I was obsessed with magic tricks when I was younger and learned a lot of basic moves and techniques .
But even with that there are some really , really simple tricks that use very simple props , or no props at all , that seem impossible and that I have no idea how to do .
So when you say " In my mind there was simply no way you could \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ " all I see is a huge red flag .
It 's called the Argument from Personal Incredulity , and it 's a blatant logical fallacy .
Someone who is not overly familiar with magic tricks , as I think might apply in your case , can see no way this effect could have been achieved without the claim being true .
Someone who is moderately familiar with performance magic , on the other hand , can imagine quite easily that it could be the result of an illusion .
2 ) As for your " straining , curving , living thing " diving at the ground , I have to say , I 'm shocked and the credulity of this statement .
You think you ca n't make a branch held at two points bend and curve ?
Very small muscle movement is all it takes to make a freshly cut ( and therefore flexible ) branch move quite a lot , so it could seem like the branch was moving while the hands holding it stayed still .
Combine that with the fact that it 's been some time since this happened , I 'd say it 's entirely likely that you saw either an ideomotor effect or a skilled performance , and exaggerated it in your memory to the point where you remember it in a very dramatic light .
Like I said , I used to study magic , and a huge amount of that is knowing how to take advantage of the remarkable human ability to remember things that did n't actually happen , or misremember things from how they really went down .
3 ) Just for the record , skeptical and cynical are not sister mindsets .
I am so sick of people equating them , as I am actually quite idealistic on the whole , while also maintaining a healthy skeptical outlook .
Skepticism only seems like a downer attitude when it pops someone 's bubble by pointing out something they really want to be true is n't actually , and they get all petulant and bent out of shape about it .
It is funny you mentioned magician 's tricks , though .
You know , there 's a reason there 's so much overlap between skeptics and magicians .
It 's because magicians know how easy it is to do " impossible " things , and do n't accept claims based solely on how something " appears " to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of observations and comments:
 
1) You clearly haven't seen very many good magician's tricks.
I was obsessed with magic tricks when I was younger and learned a lot of basic moves and techniques.
But even with that there are some really, really simple tricks that use very simple props, or no props at all, that seem impossible and that I have no idea how to do.
So when you say "In my mind there was simply no way you could \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_" all I see is a huge red flag.
It's called the Argument from Personal Incredulity, and it's a blatant logical fallacy.
Someone who is not overly familiar with magic tricks, as I think might apply in your case, can see no way this effect could have been achieved without the claim being true.
Someone who is moderately familiar with performance magic, on the other hand, can imagine quite easily that it could be the result of an illusion.
2) As for your "straining, curving, living thing" diving at the ground, I have to say, I'm shocked and the credulity of this statement.
You think you can't make a branch held at two points bend and curve?
Very small muscle movement is all it takes to make a freshly cut (and therefore flexible) branch move quite a lot, so it could seem like the branch was moving while the hands holding it stayed still.
Combine that with the fact that it's been some time since this happened, I'd say it's entirely likely that you saw either an ideomotor effect or a skilled performance, and exaggerated it in your memory to the point where you remember it in a very dramatic light.
Like I said, I used to study magic, and a huge amount of that is knowing how to take advantage of the remarkable human ability to remember things that didn't actually happen, or misremember things from how they really went down.
3) Just for the record, skeptical and cynical are not sister mindsets.
I am so sick of people equating them, as I am actually quite idealistic on the whole, while also maintaining a healthy skeptical outlook.
Skepticism only seems like a downer attitude when it pops someone's bubble by pointing out something they really want to be true isn't actually, and they get all petulant and bent out of shape about it.
It is funny you mentioned magician's tricks, though.
You know, there's a reason there's so much overlap between skeptics and magicians.
It's because magicians know how easy it is to do "impossible" things, and don't accept claims based solely on how something "appears" to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993964</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>mino</author>
	<datestamp>1257431940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.</p></div><p>If you want examples of stupidity and superstition in the US Military, I wouldn't look at MAD. Read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Men\_Who\_Stare\_at\_Goats" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Men Who Stare At Goats</a> [wikipedia.org], detailing the Army experiments to try and kill goats with thought power, 'remote viewing' to spy on enemies, and the idea of creating <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Earth\_Battalion" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">psychic peace soldiers</a> [wikipedia.org]. Scary scary stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.If you want examples of stupidity and superstition in the US Military , I would n't look at MAD .
Read The Men Who Stare At Goats [ wikipedia.org ] , detailing the Army experiments to try and kill goats with thought power , 'remote viewing ' to spy on enemies , and the idea of creating psychic peace soldiers [ wikipedia.org ] .
Scary scary stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.If you want examples of stupidity and superstition in the US Military, I wouldn't look at MAD.
Read The Men Who Stare At Goats [wikipedia.org], detailing the Army experiments to try and kill goats with thought power, 'remote viewing' to spy on enemies, and the idea of creating psychic peace soldiers [wikipedia.org].
Scary scary stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994748</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1257436080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US military has a research arm that gets it wrong sometimes, but we're not seeing psychic soldiers reading the minds of terrorists in the field or anything. We're not deploying the gay bomb anywhere. If anything, its sometimes interesting to hear some out of the box ideas. Look at the success of the predator drone, which is an old idea and one scoffed at for a long time.</p><p>The difference here is that Iraq is buying these things and using them instead of tested methods. They are letting guys with cars full of bombs pass through checkpoints because their magic wand said so.</p><p>&gt;he Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one point</p><p>An intel/defense organization is like any business. Managers (usually generals) have pet projects and try these things. Its not everyone in charge sat down and said "Yes, we need psychics now!" If there's any government institution that is by its nature skeptical its the military, because new unproven methods turn into lost lives and lost wars pretty quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US military has a research arm that gets it wrong sometimes , but we 're not seeing psychic soldiers reading the minds of terrorists in the field or anything .
We 're not deploying the gay bomb anywhere .
If anything , its sometimes interesting to hear some out of the box ideas .
Look at the success of the predator drone , which is an old idea and one scoffed at for a long time.The difference here is that Iraq is buying these things and using them instead of tested methods .
They are letting guys with cars full of bombs pass through checkpoints because their magic wand said so. &gt; he Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on " psychic warfare " projects at one pointAn intel/defense organization is like any business .
Managers ( usually generals ) have pet projects and try these things .
Its not everyone in charge sat down and said " Yes , we need psychics now !
" If there 's any government institution that is by its nature skeptical its the military , because new unproven methods turn into lost lives and lost wars pretty quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US military has a research arm that gets it wrong sometimes, but we're not seeing psychic soldiers reading the minds of terrorists in the field or anything.
We're not deploying the gay bomb anywhere.
If anything, its sometimes interesting to hear some out of the box ideas.
Look at the success of the predator drone, which is an old idea and one scoffed at for a long time.The difference here is that Iraq is buying these things and using them instead of tested methods.
They are letting guys with cars full of bombs pass through checkpoints because their magic wand said so.&gt;he Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one pointAn intel/defense organization is like any business.
Managers (usually generals) have pet projects and try these things.
Its not everyone in charge sat down and said "Yes, we need psychics now!
" If there's any government institution that is by its nature skeptical its the military, because new unproven methods turn into lost lives and lost wars pretty quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996932</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1257446820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>y'know, there are still some undead Jews.</p></div><p>A nuke is extreme overkill. A shotgun is the common, proven solution. Personally I'm not worried, my brain isn't kosher.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>y'know , there are still some undead Jews.A nuke is extreme overkill .
A shotgun is the common , proven solution .
Personally I 'm not worried , my brain is n't kosher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>y'know, there are still some undead Jews.A nuke is extreme overkill.
A shotgun is the common, proven solution.
Personally I'm not worried, my brain isn't kosher.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990170</id>
	<title>Maybe they'll finally find some of the WMDs!</title>
	<author>Lakitu</author>
	<datestamp>1257004980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they'll finally find some of the WMDs!</p><p>Then again, maybe these are surplus US Army units.  It's good to see the Army recoup some of its investment by pawning them off on the Iraqis after we realized they weren't capable of finding hidden explosive devices.  Hoo-ah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 'll finally find some of the WMDs ! Then again , maybe these are surplus US Army units .
It 's good to see the Army recoup some of its investment by pawning them off on the Iraqis after we realized they were n't capable of finding hidden explosive devices .
Hoo-ah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they'll finally find some of the WMDs!Then again, maybe these are surplus US Army units.
It's good to see the Army recoup some of its investment by pawning them off on the Iraqis after we realized they weren't capable of finding hidden explosive devices.
Hoo-ah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994064</id>
	<title>Re:Works very simply</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257432420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This won't work on most modern landmines.  They are designed not to blow up when the first, or sometimes even second or third person walks over them so that they explode in the middle of a group.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This wo n't work on most modern landmines .
They are designed not to blow up when the first , or sometimes even second or third person walks over them so that they explode in the middle of a group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This won't work on most modern landmines.
They are designed not to blow up when the first, or sometimes even second or third person walks over them so that they explode in the middle of a group.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989398</id>
	<title>This made me feel better</title>
	<author>Gorimek</author>
	<datestamp>1256999580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, my local politicians are incompetent and corrupt.</p><p>But I see now that it could be much worse!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , my local politicians are incompetent and corrupt.But I see now that it could be much worse !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, my local politicians are incompetent and corrupt.But I see now that it could be much worse!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990046</id>
	<title>Best quote of the article</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1257004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don&rsquo;t care about Sandia or the Department of Justice or any of them,&rdquo; General Jabiri said. &ldquo;I know more about this issue than the Americans do. In fact, <b>I know more about bombs than anyone in the world.</b></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I don    t care about Sandia or the Department of Justice or any of them ,    General Jabiri said .
   I know more about this issue than the Americans do .
In fact , I know more about bombs than anyone in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don’t care about Sandia or the Department of Justice or any of them,” General Jabiri said.
“I know more about this issue than the Americans do.
In fact, I know more about bombs than anyone in the world. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995146</id>
	<title>Placebo effect</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1257438180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess is that because the user has to walk very slowly to use these things, they notice stuff on the ground that they wouldn't normally see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that because the user has to walk very slowly to use these things , they notice stuff on the ground that they would n't normally see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that because the user has to walk very slowly to use these things, they notice stuff on the ground that they wouldn't normally see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990372</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll beat your price by 1 million, and throw in a colon cleanser for FREE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll beat your price by 1 million , and throw in a colon cleanser for FREE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll beat your price by 1 million, and throw in a colon cleanser for FREE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990658</id>
	<title>Re:So What? We use "Lie Detectors".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The proponents of these devices, when confronted with the undeniable technical worthlessness of them, inevitably retreat to the claim that the actual benefits come from the psychology of having people being "investigated" by the devices believe that they are actually capable of something, and then watching their reactions.</i></p><p>There is some truth to that. A criminal, when confronted by an authority figure with a pseudo-scientific device that claims to know when they are lying, will sometimes confess.</p><p>After all, most criminals aren't that bright (well, the ones that get caught), and don't know that the polygraph is a sham.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proponents of these devices , when confronted with the undeniable technical worthlessness of them , inevitably retreat to the claim that the actual benefits come from the psychology of having people being " investigated " by the devices believe that they are actually capable of something , and then watching their reactions.There is some truth to that .
A criminal , when confronted by an authority figure with a pseudo-scientific device that claims to know when they are lying , will sometimes confess.After all , most criminals are n't that bright ( well , the ones that get caught ) , and do n't know that the polygraph is a sham .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proponents of these devices, when confronted with the undeniable technical worthlessness of them, inevitably retreat to the claim that the actual benefits come from the psychology of having people being "investigated" by the devices believe that they are actually capable of something, and then watching their reactions.There is some truth to that.
A criminal, when confronted by an authority figure with a pseudo-scientific device that claims to know when they are lying, will sometimes confess.After all, most criminals aren't that bright (well, the ones that get caught), and don't know that the polygraph is a sham.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989326</id>
	<title>Placebo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO, this is just the placebo effect.</p><p>From what I understand, detecting bombs is based on looking for something out-of-place, something that shouldn't be there.  Give somebody one of these things, and they start trusting their instincts more and voila, more bombs are being detecting because of the magic stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO , this is just the placebo effect.From what I understand , detecting bombs is based on looking for something out-of-place , something that should n't be there .
Give somebody one of these things , and they start trusting their instincts more and voila , more bombs are being detecting because of the magic stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO, this is just the placebo effect.From what I understand, detecting bombs is based on looking for something out-of-place, something that shouldn't be there.
Give somebody one of these things, and they start trusting their instincts more and voila, more bombs are being detecting because of the magic stick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992212</id>
	<title>Re:I know how this got started</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1257413880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the Mutube like Youtube, only much smaller? Or is it more like a MuMuTube that is missing one Mu?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the Mutube like Youtube , only much smaller ?
Or is it more like a MuMuTube that is missing one Mu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the Mutube like Youtube, only much smaller?
Or is it more like a MuMuTube that is missing one Mu?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994140</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257432960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The rod just happens to help keep their secret safe from others who might realize what they are doing.</p></div><p>And from themselves.  There are lots of similar techniques, for example asking yourself questions while holding a pendulum still and watch it circle when you're telling the truth or go from side to side when you're lying (without consciously moving it).  It works because you are giving your subconscious a way of communicating with your conscious mind.  The part of you that was paying attention to the different patterns of plants and soil and can see the clues that indicate water will twist the rod slightly when you are over water.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rod just happens to help keep their secret safe from others who might realize what they are doing.And from themselves .
There are lots of similar techniques , for example asking yourself questions while holding a pendulum still and watch it circle when you 're telling the truth or go from side to side when you 're lying ( without consciously moving it ) .
It works because you are giving your subconscious a way of communicating with your conscious mind .
The part of you that was paying attention to the different patterns of plants and soil and can see the clues that indicate water will twist the rod slightly when you are over water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The rod just happens to help keep their secret safe from others who might realize what they are doing.And from themselves.
There are lots of similar techniques, for example asking yourself questions while holding a pendulum still and watch it circle when you're telling the truth or go from side to side when you're lying (without consciously moving it).
It works because you are giving your subconscious a way of communicating with your conscious mind.
The part of you that was paying attention to the different patterns of plants and soil and can see the clues that indicate water will twist the rod slightly when you are over water.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996070</id>
	<title>And I thought *Americans* had become wacko.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1257442620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, Iraq excels at producing superstitious wackjobs even more than we do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , Iraq excels at producing superstitious wackjobs even more than we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, Iraq excels at producing superstitious wackjobs even more than we do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993880</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257431580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So in effect, this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb. Even if I know it's bogus (and I'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this), it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb. I'd not be surprised if there was <em>some</em> correlation between <i>suspicious-looking-folks</i> and <i>folks-with-bombs</i>, so the power of unbounded searching is probably (somewhat) effective.</p></div><p>So it works the same way as sniffer dogs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So in effect , this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb .
Even if I know it 's bogus ( and I 'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this ) , it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb .
I 'd not be surprised if there was some correlation between suspicious-looking-folks and folks-with-bombs , so the power of unbounded searching is probably ( somewhat ) effective.So it works the same way as sniffer dogs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in effect, this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb.
Even if I know it's bogus (and I'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this), it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb.
I'd not be surprised if there was some correlation between suspicious-looking-folks and folks-with-bombs, so the power of unbounded searching is probably (somewhat) effective.So it works the same way as sniffer dogs?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992346</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Nocterro</author>
	<datestamp>1257415500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can leave us Australians out of it.<p>

As soon as it starts getting tough, we'll notice that we have more uranium than we can ever use. Ten years later, we'll be self sufficient for energy again.</p><p>

FSM, forgive me for responding to the troll, but s/he did get modded to +5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can leave us Australians out of it .
As soon as it starts getting tough , we 'll notice that we have more uranium than we can ever use .
Ten years later , we 'll be self sufficient for energy again .
FSM , forgive me for responding to the troll , but s/he did get modded to + 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can leave us Australians out of it.
As soon as it starts getting tough, we'll notice that we have more uranium than we can ever use.
Ten years later, we'll be self sufficient for energy again.
FSM, forgive me for responding to the troll, but s/he did get modded to +5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>justthinkit</author>
	<datestamp>1257002280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen a dowser in action.  Our family of city folks moved to the country some decades back.  We moved next to third generation farmers.  The patriarch was the most easy-going, friendly, all-the-time-in-the-world-for-you kind of guy you would ever imagine lived on this planet.  Worked all day every day.  Had no one to show off to, no one to notice what he did except us, I suppose.
<br>
<br>
One day he had stopped his truck by our orchard, taking one of his perfectly untimed smoke breaks, and the subject of dowsing came up.  He talked about not only finding water but also being able to figure out flow rates and depth.  He proceeded to cut a Y-shaped branch from a tree and dowse our property.  We had a known stream that flowed through the property and he found it, of course.  But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining, curving, living thing as it dived toward the ground.  In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.
<br>
<br>
It is incredibly easy to be skeptical and cynical, until you have seen something that rivals the best magician's trick.  From a guy who spent most of every day of his life by himself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a dowser in action .
Our family of city folks moved to the country some decades back .
We moved next to third generation farmers .
The patriarch was the most easy-going , friendly , all-the-time-in-the-world-for-you kind of guy you would ever imagine lived on this planet .
Worked all day every day .
Had no one to show off to , no one to notice what he did except us , I suppose .
One day he had stopped his truck by our orchard , taking one of his perfectly untimed smoke breaks , and the subject of dowsing came up .
He talked about not only finding water but also being able to figure out flow rates and depth .
He proceeded to cut a Y-shaped branch from a tree and dowse our property .
We had a known stream that flowed through the property and he found it , of course .
But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining , curving , living thing as it dived toward the ground .
In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it , and did it .
It is incredibly easy to be skeptical and cynical , until you have seen something that rivals the best magician 's trick .
From a guy who spent most of every day of his life by himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a dowser in action.
Our family of city folks moved to the country some decades back.
We moved next to third generation farmers.
The patriarch was the most easy-going, friendly, all-the-time-in-the-world-for-you kind of guy you would ever imagine lived on this planet.
Worked all day every day.
Had no one to show off to, no one to notice what he did except us, I suppose.
One day he had stopped his truck by our orchard, taking one of his perfectly untimed smoke breaks, and the subject of dowsing came up.
He talked about not only finding water but also being able to figure out flow rates and depth.
He proceeded to cut a Y-shaped branch from a tree and dowse our property.
We had a known stream that flowed through the property and he found it, of course.
But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining, curving, living thing as it dived toward the ground.
In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.
It is incredibly easy to be skeptical and cynical, until you have seen something that rivals the best magician's trick.
From a guy who spent most of every day of his life by himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990814</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1257009900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I was living in NY, I worked with a fellow who had his well pointed out by a local Dowser.  It cost him $300 in 1990.</p><p>And for $300, he would tell you exactly where you should dig, precisely how <i>far</i> you should dig, how much water you were going to get (GPM), how long it would last, whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells.  He could also eliminate sources with salt, sulfur, iron, calcium and anything else you don't want in your water. He'd take a wire flag and write the instructions for the driller on the flag, then stick it precisely where they were supposed to drill.</p><p>The catch?</p><p>The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing, with a <i>quadruple</i> your money back if <i>anything</i> was less than what he promised.  Goes dry?  Not enough flow?  Muddy, salty, iron, sulfur?  He'll pay you $1200.</p><p>When I heard the story from my co-worker, the old fellow hadn't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he'd been doing it.  Dunno if he's still alive now, though.</p><p>And I'm not sure he'd want to try this out with explosives if he still is.</p></div><p>Why bother with $300 a shot?</p><p>All he had to do was call up Randi and he'd get a cool million!</p><p>I wonder why he didn't...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was living in NY , I worked with a fellow who had his well pointed out by a local Dowser .
It cost him $ 300 in 1990.And for $ 300 , he would tell you exactly where you should dig , precisely how far you should dig , how much water you were going to get ( GPM ) , how long it would last , whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells .
He could also eliminate sources with salt , sulfur , iron , calcium and anything else you do n't want in your water .
He 'd take a wire flag and write the instructions for the driller on the flag , then stick it precisely where they were supposed to drill.The catch ? The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing , with a quadruple your money back if anything was less than what he promised .
Goes dry ?
Not enough flow ?
Muddy , salty , iron , sulfur ?
He 'll pay you $ 1200.When I heard the story from my co-worker , the old fellow had n't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he 'd been doing it .
Dunno if he 's still alive now , though.And I 'm not sure he 'd want to try this out with explosives if he still is.Why bother with $ 300 a shot ? All he had to do was call up Randi and he 'd get a cool million ! I wonder why he did n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was living in NY, I worked with a fellow who had his well pointed out by a local Dowser.
It cost him $300 in 1990.And for $300, he would tell you exactly where you should dig, precisely how far you should dig, how much water you were going to get (GPM), how long it would last, whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells.
He could also eliminate sources with salt, sulfur, iron, calcium and anything else you don't want in your water.
He'd take a wire flag and write the instructions for the driller on the flag, then stick it precisely where they were supposed to drill.The catch?The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing, with a quadruple your money back if anything was less than what he promised.
Goes dry?
Not enough flow?
Muddy, salty, iron, sulfur?
He'll pay you $1200.When I heard the story from my co-worker, the old fellow hadn't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he'd been doing it.
Dunno if he's still alive now, though.And I'm not sure he'd want to try this out with explosives if he still is.Why bother with $300 a shot?All he had to do was call up Randi and he'd get a cool million!I wonder why he didn't...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995314</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1257438900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, for relying on a nuclear strategy that worked (but that you personally don't think makes sense), our leaders are on the same level as using divining rods to look for bombs?</p><p>Speaking of bias...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , for relying on a nuclear strategy that worked ( but that you personally do n't think makes sense ) , our leaders are on the same level as using divining rods to look for bombs ? Speaking of bias.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, for relying on a nuclear strategy that worked (but that you personally don't think makes sense), our leaders are on the same level as using divining rods to look for bombs?Speaking of bias...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990414</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Stupid McStupidson</author>
	<datestamp>1257006540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> Someone set YOU up the bomb.

Gentlemen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone set YOU up the bomb .
Gentlemen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Someone set YOU up the bomb.
Gentlemen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991624</id>
	<title>Re:So What? We use "Lie Detectors".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do actually have something other than a person's arm arbitrarily controlling it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do actually have something other than a person 's arm arbitrarily controlling it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do actually have something other than a person's arm arbitrarily controlling it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992356</id>
	<title>Re:Bugs Bunny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257415560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but you control where the bomb explodes (at the checkpoint), not the terrorists</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but you control where the bomb explodes ( at the checkpoint ) , not the terrorists</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but you control where the bomb explodes (at the checkpoint), not the terrorists</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989538</id>
	<title>umm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257000360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vietnam is going to look like a walk in the park...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vietnam is going to look like a walk in the park.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vietnam is going to look like a walk in the park...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991236</id>
	<title>Mysteries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257013560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They call these things mysteries for a reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They call these things mysteries for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They call these things mysteries for a reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346</id>
	<title>May have a benefit....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may still have a benefit if the terrorists also have such a blind belief in the technology. If they know there are bomb detectors at the gate, they will be less likely to try to sneak a bomb through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may still have a benefit if the terrorists also have such a blind belief in the technology .
If they know there are bomb detectors at the gate , they will be less likely to try to sneak a bomb through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may still have a benefit if the terrorists also have such a blind belief in the technology.
If they know there are bomb detectors at the gate, they will be less likely to try to sneak a bomb through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994026</id>
	<title>Minefield clearance</title>
	<author>jbond23</author>
	<datestamp>1257432240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But surely somebody wandering around with a dowsing rod is an excellent way of clearing a minefield. As long as there's a steady queue of volunteers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But surely somebody wandering around with a dowsing rod is an excellent way of clearing a minefield .
As long as there 's a steady queue of volunteers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But surely somebody wandering around with a dowsing rod is an excellent way of clearing a minefield.
As long as there's a steady queue of volunteers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989962</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, they use a very similar device in Mexico, except their's detects marijuana.</p><p>Amazingly it happened to continually point at the long haired gringo, and his stuff, despite the fact I was perfectly clean, as their exhaustive search of my stuff eventually let them accept, assured the next checkpoint would have better luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they use a very similar device in Mexico , except their 's detects marijuana.Amazingly it happened to continually point at the long haired gringo , and his stuff , despite the fact I was perfectly clean , as their exhaustive search of my stuff eventually let them accept , assured the next checkpoint would have better luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they use a very similar device in Mexico, except their's detects marijuana.Amazingly it happened to continually point at the long haired gringo, and his stuff, despite the fact I was perfectly clean, as their exhaustive search of my stuff eventually let them accept, assured the next checkpoint would have better luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30005352</id>
	<title>DIFW? (Does It Work)</title>
	<author>kires</author>
	<datestamp>1257520920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a sucker for empirical data. If dowsing rods are getting the job done, then hooray for dowsing rods. If they're not, then boo for dowsing rods. It would be even poorer science than, oh, say,  'belief in dowsing rods' to draw conclusions without objective data. Either those things are working, or they're not. But in either case, the answer ought to be clear from the numbers, so there's no reason to get belief involved.

\_If\_ they seem to be getting the job done, then maybe the thingies are acting as placebos for the people using them. Sort of like people who are natural lie-detectors just thought they were responding to gut feelings until micro expressions were discovered. Maybe what's being detected isn't the explosives, but that the owner of the suspect item is acting like someone with a bomb, which starts the dowser's brain working on likely hiding places for the packet of suck,  which in turn triggers an ideomotor effect in the 'dowser'. How much of this would be conscious, and how much subconscious would vary widely from person to person, with those not aware of the process thinking, "Holy Shit! This thing is amazing!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a sucker for empirical data .
If dowsing rods are getting the job done , then hooray for dowsing rods .
If they 're not , then boo for dowsing rods .
It would be even poorer science than , oh , say , 'belief in dowsing rods ' to draw conclusions without objective data .
Either those things are working , or they 're not .
But in either case , the answer ought to be clear from the numbers , so there 's no reason to get belief involved .
\ _If \ _ they seem to be getting the job done , then maybe the thingies are acting as placebos for the people using them .
Sort of like people who are natural lie-detectors just thought they were responding to gut feelings until micro expressions were discovered .
Maybe what 's being detected is n't the explosives , but that the owner of the suspect item is acting like someone with a bomb , which starts the dowser 's brain working on likely hiding places for the packet of suck , which in turn triggers an ideomotor effect in the 'dowser' .
How much of this would be conscious , and how much subconscious would vary widely from person to person , with those not aware of the process thinking , " Holy Shit !
This thing is amazing !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a sucker for empirical data.
If dowsing rods are getting the job done, then hooray for dowsing rods.
If they're not, then boo for dowsing rods.
It would be even poorer science than, oh, say,  'belief in dowsing rods' to draw conclusions without objective data.
Either those things are working, or they're not.
But in either case, the answer ought to be clear from the numbers, so there's no reason to get belief involved.
\_If\_ they seem to be getting the job done, then maybe the thingies are acting as placebos for the people using them.
Sort of like people who are natural lie-detectors just thought they were responding to gut feelings until micro expressions were discovered.
Maybe what's being detected isn't the explosives, but that the owner of the suspect item is acting like someone with a bomb, which starts the dowser's brain working on likely hiding places for the packet of suck,  which in turn triggers an ideomotor effect in the 'dowser'.
How much of this would be conscious, and how much subconscious would vary widely from person to person, with those not aware of the process thinking, "Holy Shit!
This thing is amazing!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993478</id>
	<title>If it means more dead Imperial Crusader soldiers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257428640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go for it.</p><p>Crusading invaders begone already! Oil thieving raping and murdering flag waving puppy tossing wastes of life. . .</p><p>P.S.<br>Begone with a flag draped over your personal first class compartment you American piece of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go for it.Crusading invaders begone already !
Oil thieving raping and murdering flag waving puppy tossing wastes of life .
. .P.S.Begone with a flag draped over your personal first class compartment you American piece of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go for it.Crusading invaders begone already!
Oil thieving raping and murdering flag waving puppy tossing wastes of life.
. .P.S.Begone with a flag draped over your personal first class compartment you American piece of shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989886</id>
	<title>This is absolutely brilliant!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... let's get this right...you give the guy a divining rod and then tell them to them to wander around a suspected mine field holding this thing.  When it dips (or crosses, you found a mine).  Yup, that'll work.  Hard to believe we can't seem to win this war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... let 's get this right...you give the guy a divining rod and then tell them to them to wander around a suspected mine field holding this thing .
When it dips ( or crosses , you found a mine ) .
Yup , that 'll work .
Hard to believe we ca n't seem to win this war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... let's get this right...you give the guy a divining rod and then tell them to them to wander around a suspected mine field holding this thing.
When it dips (or crosses, you found a mine).
Yup, that'll work.
Hard to believe we can't seem to win this war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993544</id>
	<title>post-success dialog</title>
	<author>jshark</author>
	<datestamp>1257429300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;after successfully finding IED&gt;<br>
"No boom?"<br> <br>

"No boom."<br> <br>

"No boom TODAY.  Boom tomorrow.  There's always a boom tomorrow."<br> <br>

(you know where it's from)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" No boom ?
" " No boom .
" " No boom TODAY .
Boom tomorrow .
There 's always a boom tomorrow .
" ( you know where it 's from )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"No boom?
" 

"No boom.
" 

"No boom TODAY.
Boom tomorrow.
There's always a boom tomorrow.
" 

(you know where it's from)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992456</id>
	<title>Re:Works very simply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257416700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ur mexican too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ur mexican too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ur mexican too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990928</id>
	<title>Fear factor</title>
	<author>fragMasterFlash</author>
	<datestamp>1257010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You and I know these devices do nothing, the guys waving them around at the checkpoints know they do nothing but the would-be bombers aren't quite as confident. All it takes is one nervous twitch and WHAM! They are detained, searched and questioned. Find one needle in the haystack this way and soon the word gets around. This is quite a fine bit of social engineering, IMHO. Too bad about the exorbitant price tag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You and I know these devices do nothing , the guys waving them around at the checkpoints know they do nothing but the would-be bombers are n't quite as confident .
All it takes is one nervous twitch and WHAM !
They are detained , searched and questioned .
Find one needle in the haystack this way and soon the word gets around .
This is quite a fine bit of social engineering , IMHO .
Too bad about the exorbitant price tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You and I know these devices do nothing, the guys waving them around at the checkpoints know they do nothing but the would-be bombers aren't quite as confident.
All it takes is one nervous twitch and WHAM!
They are detained, searched and questioned.
Find one needle in the haystack this way and soon the word gets around.
This is quite a fine bit of social engineering, IMHO.
Too bad about the exorbitant price tag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990516</id>
	<title>Re:What this shows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It'd never go over in the more-educated United States.</p></div><p>Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd never go over in the more-educated United States.Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd never go over in the more-educated United States.Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990244</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>roguetrick</author>
	<datestamp>1257005400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many tests have been done, none have proven dowsing to exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many tests have been done , none have proven dowsing to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many tests have been done, none have proven dowsing to exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990996</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1257011400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the schoolyard.</p><p>The fact that there are retards in the US doesn't mean we can't point at the retards in other places too.</p><p>Especially if they're being soaked, and doubly-so if it's my money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the schoolyard.The fact that there are retards in the US does n't mean we ca n't point at the retards in other places too.Especially if they 're being soaked , and doubly-so if it 's my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the schoolyard.The fact that there are retards in the US doesn't mean we can't point at the retards in other places too.Especially if they're being soaked, and doubly-so if it's my money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994092</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257432600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And Slashdot never mocks American idiots, British idiots, French idiots, or any other subspecies of idiot...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Slashdot never mocks American idiots , British idiots , French idiots , or any other subspecies of idiot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Slashdot never mocks American idiots, British idiots, French idiots, or any other subspecies of idiot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997278</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1257448560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, good point, I was mistaken when I said nukes had no purpose and we should have unilaterally never made them.</p><p>Wait a minute, no, I didn't say anything to that effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , good point , I was mistaken when I said nukes had no purpose and we should have unilaterally never made them.Wait a minute , no , I did n't say anything to that effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, good point, I was mistaken when I said nukes had no purpose and we should have unilaterally never made them.Wait a minute, no, I didn't say anything to that effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989986</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1257003660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that's a problem is the price tag! If they want to use dowsing rods, fine. It's not like the U.S. Army didn't try it too, but couldn't they just raid a dry cleaner?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that 's a problem is the price tag !
If they want to use dowsing rods , fine .
It 's not like the U.S. Army did n't try it too , but could n't they just raid a dry cleaner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that's a problem is the price tag!
If they want to use dowsing rods, fine.
It's not like the U.S. Army didn't try it too, but couldn't they just raid a dry cleaner?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993316</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid... yes it is</title>
	<author>Mjlner</author>
	<datestamp>1257426960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So in effect, this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb. Even if I know it's bogus (and I'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this), it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb.</p></div><p>You know, I really don't think they need to bother much about permission to search anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So in effect , this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb .
Even if I know it 's bogus ( and I 'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this ) , it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb.You know , I really do n't think they need to bother much about permission to search anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in effect, this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb.
Even if I know it's bogus (and I'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this), it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb.You know, I really don't think they need to bother much about permission to search anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990166</id>
	<title>Military Dowsing History</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1257004980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     I used to be skeptical. My old uncle used to hold a modified coat-hanger in one hand and float a pen over a map with the other. He found many many many oil and gas well locations this way and was never plagued by dry holes. Loads of dowsing stories he had. He would vacation and come back with gold nuggets. He astounded a freshly retired naval officer friend by globe dowsing the secret location of his submarine. He showed me articles with pictures of grunts in Viet Nam finding Charlies tunnel entrances with modified bucket handles.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; We had several discussions about what was really happening here. From what we and others could figure , the dowsing rod, pendulum or whatever is used is only and indicator of intuition. The trick, my uncle said was to enter an alpha state of mind or it wouldn't work. This we tested with a biofeedback machine and it seemed to be so. Other untested thoughts we had were; perhaps the magnetic sensing nerves in your nose work in conjunction with your brain and any ferric or bioelectric signature of the sought item. This wasn't disproved, but , he also would think of yes/no answer questions and get 95\% + accuracy upon investigation.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I never attained his accuracy, but, I still find lost items around the house pretty well.<br>When science can quantify intuition, then I believe we will be able to experiment more. Till then, if it works for you use it, others have for centuries. If you don't have any faith it it, you won't be able to do it for sure. It doesn't have anything to do with anything supernatural , only biological as far as I have seen. No debunking necessary. It remains an obscure talent among those who can control their own alpha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be skeptical .
My old uncle used to hold a modified coat-hanger in one hand and float a pen over a map with the other .
He found many many many oil and gas well locations this way and was never plagued by dry holes .
Loads of dowsing stories he had .
He would vacation and come back with gold nuggets .
He astounded a freshly retired naval officer friend by globe dowsing the secret location of his submarine .
He showed me articles with pictures of grunts in Viet Nam finding Charlies tunnel entrances with modified bucket handles .
            We had several discussions about what was really happening here .
From what we and others could figure , the dowsing rod , pendulum or whatever is used is only and indicator of intuition .
The trick , my uncle said was to enter an alpha state of mind or it would n't work .
This we tested with a biofeedback machine and it seemed to be so .
Other untested thoughts we had were ; perhaps the magnetic sensing nerves in your nose work in conjunction with your brain and any ferric or bioelectric signature of the sought item .
This was n't disproved , but , he also would think of yes/no answer questions and get 95 \ % + accuracy upon investigation .
          I never attained his accuracy , but , I still find lost items around the house pretty well.When science can quantify intuition , then I believe we will be able to experiment more .
Till then , if it works for you use it , others have for centuries .
If you do n't have any faith it it , you wo n't be able to do it for sure .
It does n't have anything to do with anything supernatural , only biological as far as I have seen .
No debunking necessary .
It remains an obscure talent among those who can control their own alpha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     I used to be skeptical.
My old uncle used to hold a modified coat-hanger in one hand and float a pen over a map with the other.
He found many many many oil and gas well locations this way and was never plagued by dry holes.
Loads of dowsing stories he had.
He would vacation and come back with gold nuggets.
He astounded a freshly retired naval officer friend by globe dowsing the secret location of his submarine.
He showed me articles with pictures of grunts in Viet Nam finding Charlies tunnel entrances with modified bucket handles.
            We had several discussions about what was really happening here.
From what we and others could figure , the dowsing rod, pendulum or whatever is used is only and indicator of intuition.
The trick, my uncle said was to enter an alpha state of mind or it wouldn't work.
This we tested with a biofeedback machine and it seemed to be so.
Other untested thoughts we had were; perhaps the magnetic sensing nerves in your nose work in conjunction with your brain and any ferric or bioelectric signature of the sought item.
This wasn't disproved, but , he also would think of yes/no answer questions and get 95\% + accuracy upon investigation.
          I never attained his accuracy, but, I still find lost items around the house pretty well.When science can quantify intuition, then I believe we will be able to experiment more.
Till then, if it works for you use it, others have for centuries.
If you don't have any faith it it, you won't be able to do it for sure.
It doesn't have anything to do with anything supernatural , only biological as far as I have seen.
No debunking necessary.
It remains an obscure talent among those who can control their own alpha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989602</id>
	<title>There must be a heck of a lot of bombs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257000720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Otherwise, they'd start complaining about all of the false-positives from the devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise , they 'd start complaining about all of the false-positives from the devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise, they'd start complaining about all of the false-positives from the devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989972</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1257003600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, despite all that, let's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing. After all, they are primitive foreigners. There's no way good, right-thinking Americans would act that way.</p></div><p>No, doofus, it's not a nationality issue.  Everyone expects stupid people to do stupid things.  What we don't expect (or condone) is government departments using magic wands to keep us safe (or to do anything else, for that matter).  If the DHS were using these things to look for suspects at airports, you bet your ass there would be a massive fucking uproar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , despite all that , let 's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing .
After all , they are primitive foreigners .
There 's no way good , right-thinking Americans would act that way.No , doofus , it 's not a nationality issue .
Everyone expects stupid people to do stupid things .
What we do n't expect ( or condone ) is government departments using magic wands to keep us safe ( or to do anything else , for that matter ) .
If the DHS were using these things to look for suspects at airports , you bet your ass there would be a massive fucking uproar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, despite all that, let's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing.
After all, they are primitive foreigners.
There's no way good, right-thinking Americans would act that way.No, doofus, it's not a nationality issue.
Everyone expects stupid people to do stupid things.
What we don't expect (or condone) is government departments using magic wands to keep us safe (or to do anything else, for that matter).
If the DHS were using these things to look for suspects at airports, you bet your ass there would be a massive fucking uproar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30020410</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257681540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>without being alarmist millions of people in the less fortunate parts of the world will die</i> </p><p>Jeez, thanks a mill for not rubbing out faces in the really scary stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>without being alarmist millions of people in the less fortunate parts of the world will die Jeez , thanks a mill for not rubbing out faces in the really scary stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>without being alarmist millions of people in the less fortunate parts of the world will die Jeez, thanks a mill for not rubbing out faces in the really scary stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996322</id>
	<title>Put it to a test</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1257443880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a simple test that they can do to prove it's effectiveness. Place 9 empty boxes, and one with a bomb in it. Place their payroll in with the bomb. They've got one chance to pick the box with the bomb, or their paychecks are toast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a simple test that they can do to prove it 's effectiveness .
Place 9 empty boxes , and one with a bomb in it .
Place their payroll in with the bomb .
They 've got one chance to pick the box with the bomb , or their paychecks are toast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a simple test that they can do to prove it's effectiveness.
Place 9 empty boxes, and one with a bomb in it.
Place their payroll in with the bomb.
They've got one chance to pick the box with the bomb, or their paychecks are toast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992718</id>
	<title>Re:May have a benefit....</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257419940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, more likely to be visibly apprehensive at the gate if they are carrying a bomb.<br> <br>"Oh fudge, they have that magic Bomb wand! Everyone act casual... Casual people!" *Passes out gum, whistles nondescript tune*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , more likely to be visibly apprehensive at the gate if they are carrying a bomb .
" Oh fudge , they have that magic Bomb wand !
Everyone act casual... Casual people !
" * Passes out gum , whistles nondescript tune *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, more likely to be visibly apprehensive at the gate if they are carrying a bomb.
"Oh fudge, they have that magic Bomb wand!
Everyone act casual... Casual people!
" *Passes out gum, whistles nondescript tune*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990106</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>Lakitu</author>
	<datestamp>1257004560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While those may be silly, listening to the devil's voice by playing a record backwards never failed and then blew up the immediate surroundings, nor did it cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While those may be silly , listening to the devil 's voice by playing a record backwards never failed and then blew up the immediate surroundings , nor did it cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While those may be silly, listening to the devil's voice by playing a record backwards never failed and then blew up the immediate surroundings, nor did it cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991016</id>
	<title>Expensive placebos are more effective.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Expensive placebos are more effective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Expensive placebos are more effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expensive placebos are more effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994964</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Fastfwd</author>
	<datestamp>1257437280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.  We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.</p></div><p>With all the religion talk from both parties and the money that says "in god we trust" or something like that I would say that the whole USA is governed by superstition. Yes religion is superstition; being the most popular superstition does not make it any more real.</p><p>And just as in water witches maybe there is something we just can't see/test for/prove and that god indeed exists. But right now it's a superstition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because we 're so much smarter than the Iraqis .
We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.With all the religion talk from both parties and the money that says " in god we trust " or something like that I would say that the whole USA is governed by superstition .
Yes religion is superstition ; being the most popular superstition does not make it any more real.And just as in water witches maybe there is something we just ca n't see/test for/prove and that god indeed exists .
But right now it 's a superstition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.
We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.With all the religion talk from both parties and the money that says "in god we trust" or something like that I would say that the whole USA is governed by superstition.
Yes religion is superstition; being the most popular superstition does not make it any more real.And just as in water witches maybe there is something we just can't see/test for/prove and that god indeed exists.
But right now it's a superstition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318</id>
	<title>Works very simply</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1256999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It works on a very simple principle, that is used in many devices sold today: the company that makes them probably kicks half the price back to the official who authorized the purchase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It works on a very simple principle , that is used in many devices sold today : the company that makes them probably kicks half the price back to the official who authorized the purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works on a very simple principle, that is used in many devices sold today: the company that makes them probably kicks half the price back to the official who authorized the purchase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998580</id>
	<title>Re:Expensive placebos are more effective.</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1257454080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the terrorists are superstitious or believe they work, then they will actually work to some degree.  For two reasons: 1) They will discourage people taking bombs through checkpoints with the devices.  2) A person transporting a bomb through a checkpoint is much more likely to act nervously or flighty in the presence of a "bomb detector" even if it doesn't work -- thus flagging them for further inspection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the terrorists are superstitious or believe they work , then they will actually work to some degree .
For two reasons : 1 ) They will discourage people taking bombs through checkpoints with the devices .
2 ) A person transporting a bomb through a checkpoint is much more likely to act nervously or flighty in the presence of a " bomb detector " even if it does n't work -- thus flagging them for further inspection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the terrorists are superstitious or believe they work, then they will actually work to some degree.
For two reasons: 1) They will discourage people taking bombs through checkpoints with the devices.
2) A person transporting a bomb through a checkpoint is much more likely to act nervously or flighty in the presence of a "bomb detector" even if it doesn't work -- thus flagging them for further inspection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992654</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>radio4fan</author>
	<datestamp>1257419100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil...</p></div><p>It is not hypocritical to believe that we should all obtain our oil on the free market. Note that the Iraq war has *not* made oil cheaper: in fact it has got five times more expensive. The Iraq war has not improved the lifestyle for those of us in the belligerent countries.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess it's easier to project the guilt onto the big bad rich white men.  Kinda like how many junkies blame their dealers for the state of their own lives...</p></div><p>In the four years I spent as a drug counsellor I never heard any drug users blaming their dealers for 'the state of their own lives'.</p><p>Almost invariably, a drug users dealers are his friends and his friends are his dealers. Drug 'pushers' are mythical beasts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil...It is not hypocritical to believe that we should all obtain our oil on the free market .
Note that the Iraq war has * not * made oil cheaper : in fact it has got five times more expensive .
The Iraq war has not improved the lifestyle for those of us in the belligerent countries.I guess it 's easier to project the guilt onto the big bad rich white men .
Kinda like how many junkies blame their dealers for the state of their own lives...In the four years I spent as a drug counsellor I never heard any drug users blaming their dealers for 'the state of their own lives'.Almost invariably , a drug users dealers are his friends and his friends are his dealers .
Drug 'pushers ' are mythical beasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil...It is not hypocritical to believe that we should all obtain our oil on the free market.
Note that the Iraq war has *not* made oil cheaper: in fact it has got five times more expensive.
The Iraq war has not improved the lifestyle for those of us in the belligerent countries.I guess it's easier to project the guilt onto the big bad rich white men.
Kinda like how many junkies blame their dealers for the state of their own lives...In the four years I spent as a drug counsellor I never heard any drug users blaming their dealers for 'the state of their own lives'.Almost invariably, a drug users dealers are his friends and his friends are his dealers.
Drug 'pushers' are mythical beasts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990206</id>
	<title>Re:What this shows</title>
	<author>orlanz</author>
	<datestamp>1257005220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It'd never go over in the more-educated United States.</p></div><p>To hit home closer than the other posters, liquids less than 4oz must be put in a zip lock bag else they have to be checked in.  I don't think "more-educated" means what you think it means or the satire has gone over all our heads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd never go over in the more-educated United States.To hit home closer than the other posters , liquids less than 4oz must be put in a zip lock bag else they have to be checked in .
I do n't think " more-educated " means what you think it means or the satire has gone over all our heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd never go over in the more-educated United States.To hit home closer than the other posters, liquids less than 4oz must be put in a zip lock bag else they have to be checked in.
I don't think "more-educated" means what you think it means or the satire has gone over all our heads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989922</id>
	<title>What are we doing there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we colonizing?  I hope not!  That would be an impossible task!</p><p>Are we raping and pillaging?  Nope!</p><p>What the hell are we doing there, other than spending money?</p><p>What a WASTE.</p><p>Obama's demonstrating that he's powerless to take command of the military.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we colonizing ?
I hope not !
That would be an impossible task ! Are we raping and pillaging ?
Nope ! What the hell are we doing there , other than spending money ? What a WASTE.Obama 's demonstrating that he 's powerless to take command of the military .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we colonizing?
I hope not!
That would be an impossible task!Are we raping and pillaging?
Nope!What the hell are we doing there, other than spending money?What a WASTE.Obama's demonstrating that he's powerless to take command of the military.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1257424620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's rewind time a bit; suppose Einstein's advice was followed and the U.S. didn't build the bomb. No Hiroshima or Nagasaki as testament to its effects. It is known the Soviet Union was working on their own as was Germany. After the war, both the Soviets and the U.S. rushed to grab German scientists. So even if the Soviet Union wasn't working on it during the war, they'd have been working on it after. And they were led by that great humanitarian, Stalin. Hmmmm....what would a Stalin do with nukes knowing no one could retaliate...I give up, I cannot guess...</p><p>Let's assume that Stalin gets a case of Empathy and decides not to nuke his enemies, even the real ones. Roll time forward a bit. Iran decides it needs nukes to get out the Kill-the-Jews vote in Islam. The U.S., having eschewed nukes because they were bad, would surely have pressured Israel into no nukes as well. There is no stopping Iran from getting a nuke, they need it to help bring back the Mahdi and well, y'know, there are still some undead Jews.</p><p>Then there are those nice N. Koreans who are about as well adjusted as a squirrel after his third cup of coffee. Would you like L.A. with that holocaust or just a bit of self-indulgent sugar?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's rewind time a bit ; suppose Einstein 's advice was followed and the U.S. did n't build the bomb .
No Hiroshima or Nagasaki as testament to its effects .
It is known the Soviet Union was working on their own as was Germany .
After the war , both the Soviets and the U.S. rushed to grab German scientists .
So even if the Soviet Union was n't working on it during the war , they 'd have been working on it after .
And they were led by that great humanitarian , Stalin .
Hmmmm....what would a Stalin do with nukes knowing no one could retaliate...I give up , I can not guess...Let 's assume that Stalin gets a case of Empathy and decides not to nuke his enemies , even the real ones .
Roll time forward a bit .
Iran decides it needs nukes to get out the Kill-the-Jews vote in Islam .
The U.S. , having eschewed nukes because they were bad , would surely have pressured Israel into no nukes as well .
There is no stopping Iran from getting a nuke , they need it to help bring back the Mahdi and well , y'know , there are still some undead Jews.Then there are those nice N. Koreans who are about as well adjusted as a squirrel after his third cup of coffee .
Would you like L.A. with that holocaust or just a bit of self-indulgent sugar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's rewind time a bit; suppose Einstein's advice was followed and the U.S. didn't build the bomb.
No Hiroshima or Nagasaki as testament to its effects.
It is known the Soviet Union was working on their own as was Germany.
After the war, both the Soviets and the U.S. rushed to grab German scientists.
So even if the Soviet Union wasn't working on it during the war, they'd have been working on it after.
And they were led by that great humanitarian, Stalin.
Hmmmm....what would a Stalin do with nukes knowing no one could retaliate...I give up, I cannot guess...Let's assume that Stalin gets a case of Empathy and decides not to nuke his enemies, even the real ones.
Roll time forward a bit.
Iran decides it needs nukes to get out the Kill-the-Jews vote in Islam.
The U.S., having eschewed nukes because they were bad, would surely have pressured Israel into no nukes as well.
There is no stopping Iran from getting a nuke, they need it to help bring back the Mahdi and well, y'know, there are still some undead Jews.Then there are those nice N. Koreans who are about as well adjusted as a squirrel after his third cup of coffee.
Would you like L.A. with that holocaust or just a bit of self-indulgent sugar?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991808</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257451380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody actually relied on MAD during the Cold War. MAD is an idea that theorists use to explain ex post facto how politicians failed to actually push the button even though they spent all that time and money on building the weapons, and what students are taught because of the formalisms of common pedagogy.</p><p>Both the Soviet Union and the US more-or-less presumed that the US would prevail in a first strike with acceptable losses, and no pithy theory could ever explain the complexities that unfolded over 50 years. Notwithstanding \_history\_, however, MAD is actually a very elegant and sophisticated model for emergent behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody actually relied on MAD during the Cold War .
MAD is an idea that theorists use to explain ex post facto how politicians failed to actually push the button even though they spent all that time and money on building the weapons , and what students are taught because of the formalisms of common pedagogy.Both the Soviet Union and the US more-or-less presumed that the US would prevail in a first strike with acceptable losses , and no pithy theory could ever explain the complexities that unfolded over 50 years .
Notwithstanding \ _history \ _ , however , MAD is actually a very elegant and sophisticated model for emergent behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody actually relied on MAD during the Cold War.
MAD is an idea that theorists use to explain ex post facto how politicians failed to actually push the button even though they spent all that time and money on building the weapons, and what students are taught because of the formalisms of common pedagogy.Both the Soviet Union and the US more-or-less presumed that the US would prevail in a first strike with acceptable losses, and no pithy theory could ever explain the complexities that unfolded over 50 years.
Notwithstanding \_history\_, however, MAD is actually a very elegant and sophisticated model for emergent behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989668</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1257001140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dowsers are right sometimes, but no better than a geologist would be just looking at the lay of the land. In double-blind controlled tests, they fail every single time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dowsers are right sometimes , but no better than a geologist would be just looking at the lay of the land .
In double-blind controlled tests , they fail every single time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dowsers are right sometimes, but no better than a geologist would be just looking at the lay of the land.
In double-blind controlled tests, they fail every single time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989338</id>
	<title>Typical military "logic"</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1256999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nothingtoseeheremovealong</htmltext>
<tokenext>nothingtoseeheremovealong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothingtoseeheremovealong</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990180</id>
	<title>Ouija Says - l..e..t..t..h..e..m..d..i..e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's no real loss to society when idiots like that have a defective dowsing rod.  For some fun reading, check out OmniNerd's experiment with Ouija Boards - http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Do\_Ouija\_Boards\_Work\_The\_Fact\_and\_Fiction</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh ... it 's no real loss to society when idiots like that have a defective dowsing rod .
For some fun reading , check out OmniNerd 's experiment with Ouija Boards - http : //www.omninerd.com/articles/Do \ _Ouija \ _Boards \ _Work \ _The \ _Fact \ _and \ _Fiction</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh ... it's no real loss to society when idiots like that have a defective dowsing rod.
For some fun reading, check out OmniNerd's experiment with Ouija Boards - http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Do\_Ouija\_Boards\_Work\_The\_Fact\_and\_Fiction</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990564</id>
	<title>They work great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One guy takes the dowsing rod, or whatever you want to call it and walks ahead of the convoy. When he steps on a mine, it goes off. You've found the mine. Better yet, if these things are made of relatively strong steel, you can generally find them. Usually several hundred yards away. Pound it back into shape, hand it to the next guy and you're back in business.</p><p>Lets see you do that with any of the newfangled electronic devices our troops use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One guy takes the dowsing rod , or whatever you want to call it and walks ahead of the convoy .
When he steps on a mine , it goes off .
You 've found the mine .
Better yet , if these things are made of relatively strong steel , you can generally find them .
Usually several hundred yards away .
Pound it back into shape , hand it to the next guy and you 're back in business.Lets see you do that with any of the newfangled electronic devices our troops use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One guy takes the dowsing rod, or whatever you want to call it and walks ahead of the convoy.
When he steps on a mine, it goes off.
You've found the mine.
Better yet, if these things are made of relatively strong steel, you can generally find them.
Usually several hundred yards away.
Pound it back into shape, hand it to the next guy and you're back in business.Lets see you do that with any of the newfangled electronic devices our troops use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394</id>
	<title>What this shows</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1256999580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that use of this device shows is that bombs are rare enough in practice that strict security is unwarranted. It's certainly cheaper security theater than the TSA's sniffers and X-Ray machines. It works because the population believes it works. It'd never go over in the more-educated United States.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that use of this device shows is that bombs are rare enough in practice that strict security is unwarranted .
It 's certainly cheaper security theater than the TSA 's sniffers and X-Ray machines .
It works because the population believes it works .
It 'd never go over in the more-educated United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that use of this device shows is that bombs are rare enough in practice that strict security is unwarranted.
It's certainly cheaper security theater than the TSA's sniffers and X-Ray machines.
It works because the population believes it works.
It'd never go over in the more-educated United States.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002254</id>
	<title>Funny, you tried sarcasm, but failed totally</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1257431460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.</p></div></blockquote><p>We are.  Demonstrably.  Save the cultural relativism, we're as bad as they are bullshit for a country where it might actually work, in this case you chose poorly.</p><blockquote><div><p>I'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we're seeing here.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, you'd argue a policy that to this point, has worked flawlessly, is inferior to something that has been <b>repeatedly scientifically disproven, and is therefore a total fraud and danger to troops</b> and think that makes sense?</p><p>You think a KNOWN, PROVEN LIE is better than a policy that has irrefutably worked?</p><p>What the fuck is wrong with you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because we 're so much smarter than the Iraqis.We are .
Demonstrably. Save the cultural relativism , we 're as bad as they are bullshit for a country where it might actually work , in this case you chose poorly.I 'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we 're seeing here.So , you 'd argue a policy that to this point , has worked flawlessly , is inferior to something that has been repeatedly scientifically disproven , and is therefore a total fraud and danger to troops and think that makes sense ? You think a KNOWN , PROVEN LIE is better than a policy that has irrefutably worked ? What the fuck is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.We are.
Demonstrably.  Save the cultural relativism, we're as bad as they are bullshit for a country where it might actually work, in this case you chose poorly.I'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we're seeing here.So, you'd argue a policy that to this point, has worked flawlessly, is inferior to something that has been repeatedly scientifically disproven, and is therefore a total fraud and danger to troops and think that makes sense?You think a KNOWN, PROVEN LIE is better than a policy that has irrefutably worked?What the fuck is wrong with you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992252</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257414180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no other reason.</p></div><p>Think again, the US is just being used and worn down. This situation is artificially created so it can be used to expand. America is hated because they protect israel, they stab you in the back once you get weak. Get streetwise, pull out now. Airdrop some weapons and supplies for the weaker tribes to defend with maybe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no other reason.Think again , the US is just being used and worn down .
This situation is artificially created so it can be used to expand .
America is hated because they protect israel , they stab you in the back once you get weak .
Get streetwise , pull out now .
Airdrop some weapons and supplies for the weaker tribes to defend with maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no other reason.Think again, the US is just being used and worn down.
This situation is artificially created so it can be used to expand.
America is hated because they protect israel, they stab you in the back once you get weak.
Get streetwise, pull out now.
Airdrop some weapons and supplies for the weaker tribes to defend with maybe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002596</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1257435060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MAD scenario wasn't actually reached until the late 50's or early 60's.  Both the Soviet Union AND United States had already developed hydrogen bombs by the time MAD became universal.  The Soviets were lagging behind in a retaliatory capacity.  Remember that incident with the missiles in Cuba?  When that president from Massachusetts put a blockade around the island?  The reason the Soviets put those missiles there was because they didn't have enough long range missiles to retaliate against the U.S. if they pushed the button first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MAD scenario was n't actually reached until the late 50 's or early 60 's .
Both the Soviet Union AND United States had already developed hydrogen bombs by the time MAD became universal .
The Soviets were lagging behind in a retaliatory capacity .
Remember that incident with the missiles in Cuba ?
When that president from Massachusetts put a blockade around the island ?
The reason the Soviets put those missiles there was because they did n't have enough long range missiles to retaliate against the U.S. if they pushed the button first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MAD scenario wasn't actually reached until the late 50's or early 60's.
Both the Soviet Union AND United States had already developed hydrogen bombs by the time MAD became universal.
The Soviets were lagging behind in a retaliatory capacity.
Remember that incident with the missiles in Cuba?
When that president from Massachusetts put a blockade around the island?
The reason the Soviets put those missiles there was because they didn't have enough long range missiles to retaliate against the U.S. if they pushed the button first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992842</id>
	<title>I'm a little confused...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257421200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the device the black pistol-looking thing in the hand of the guy in the foreground, or the wooden broom handle being held by the background guard?<br> <br>I feel that under scientific analysis, both would have the same detection rate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the device the black pistol-looking thing in the hand of the guy in the foreground , or the wooden broom handle being held by the background guard ?
I feel that under scientific analysis , both would have the same detection rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the device the black pistol-looking thing in the hand of the guy in the foreground, or the wooden broom handle being held by the background guard?
I feel that under scientific analysis, both would have the same detection rate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992696</id>
	<title>I'm sure others have pointed this out....</title>
	<author>Tomsk70</author>
	<datestamp>1257419640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....but isn't it illegal to sell stuff from the UK that has been proved not to do what you claim?</p><p>The cosmetics industry has had to be very careful for years to avoid guaranteeing youthful looks....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....but is n't it illegal to sell stuff from the UK that has been proved not to do what you claim ? The cosmetics industry has had to be very careful for years to avoid guaranteeing youthful looks... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....but isn't it illegal to sell stuff from the UK that has been proved not to do what you claim?The cosmetics industry has had to be very careful for years to avoid guaranteeing youthful looks....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992060</id>
	<title>Whoa</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1257411900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Proponents of the wand often argue that errors stem from the human operator, who they say must be rested, with a steady pulse and body temperature, before using the device.</p><p>Then the operator must walk in place a few moments to &ldquo;charge&rdquo; the device, since it has no battery or other power source, and walk with the wand at right angles to the body. If there are explosives or drugs to the operator&rsquo;s left, the wand is supposed to swivel to the operator&rsquo;s left and point at them.</p></div></blockquote><p>I hope Scientology doesn't find out about this. Within a year, the Iraqi military would be at Operathing Thetan Level 3 in order to detect bomb enturbulation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proponents of the wand often argue that errors stem from the human operator , who they say must be rested , with a steady pulse and body temperature , before using the device.Then the operator must walk in place a few moments to    charge    the device , since it has no battery or other power source , and walk with the wand at right angles to the body .
If there are explosives or drugs to the operator    s left , the wand is supposed to swivel to the operator    s left and point at them.I hope Scientology does n't find out about this .
Within a year , the Iraqi military would be at Operathing Thetan Level 3 in order to detect bomb enturbulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proponents of the wand often argue that errors stem from the human operator, who they say must be rested, with a steady pulse and body temperature, before using the device.Then the operator must walk in place a few moments to “charge” the device, since it has no battery or other power source, and walk with the wand at right angles to the body.
If there are explosives or drugs to the operator’s left, the wand is supposed to swivel to the operator’s left and point at them.I hope Scientology doesn't find out about this.
Within a year, the Iraqi military would be at Operathing Thetan Level 3 in order to detect bomb enturbulation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990502</id>
	<title>One Million Dollars</title>
	<author>Faux\_Pseudo</author>
	<datestamp>1257007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is great.  We now have a large pool of people who qualify to win the JREF million dollar prise.  If just one of them can prove in a double blind test then they can win the money and get out of Iraq.  Science be praised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great .
We now have a large pool of people who qualify to win the JREF million dollar prise .
If just one of them can prove in a double blind test then they can win the money and get out of Iraq .
Science be praised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great.
We now have a large pool of people who qualify to win the JREF million dollar prise.
If just one of them can prove in a double blind test then they can win the money and get out of Iraq.
Science be praised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990604</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is not much to psychic abilities, everybody has them.</p><p>Our mind detects all kinds of information. We just need to learn the language to process it into something useful. Is like when you are in a foreign country, you sit at a restaurant and hear chatter in a language you don't understand. If you learn the language you could turn the chatter around you into useful information.</p><p>Dowsing rods are just one way to "translate" all the chatter our mind detects into something useful. There are courses where you learn how to train your mind to give you useful information and how to know the difference between real information (a "gut feeling") and something your mind is making up.</p><p>The psychics you see on TV helping the police are people with a natural talent to interpretate this information the same way a talented singer can sing well without training.</p><p>I took one such a course and just for lulz I tested it when Reiser's wife disappeared. I <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=242093&amp;cid=19663969" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">posted</a> [slashdot.org] here in slashdot what I detected...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is not much to psychic abilities , everybody has them.Our mind detects all kinds of information .
We just need to learn the language to process it into something useful .
Is like when you are in a foreign country , you sit at a restaurant and hear chatter in a language you do n't understand .
If you learn the language you could turn the chatter around you into useful information.Dowsing rods are just one way to " translate " all the chatter our mind detects into something useful .
There are courses where you learn how to train your mind to give you useful information and how to know the difference between real information ( a " gut feeling " ) and something your mind is making up.The psychics you see on TV helping the police are people with a natural talent to interpretate this information the same way a talented singer can sing well without training.I took one such a course and just for lulz I tested it when Reiser 's wife disappeared .
I posted [ slashdot.org ] here in slashdot what I detected.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is not much to psychic abilities, everybody has them.Our mind detects all kinds of information.
We just need to learn the language to process it into something useful.
Is like when you are in a foreign country, you sit at a restaurant and hear chatter in a language you don't understand.
If you learn the language you could turn the chatter around you into useful information.Dowsing rods are just one way to "translate" all the chatter our mind detects into something useful.
There are courses where you learn how to train your mind to give you useful information and how to know the difference between real information (a "gut feeling") and something your mind is making up.The psychics you see on TV helping the police are people with a natural talent to interpretate this information the same way a talented singer can sing well without training.I took one such a course and just for lulz I tested it when Reiser's wife disappeared.
I posted [slashdot.org] here in slashdot what I detected...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1257010620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree, but MAD is hardly the best example... in fact, it actually makes a lot of sense, despite the fact that it is, indeed, mad.  But look at some of the more ridiculous weapons exercises and theories funded by the Pentagon over the years -- who the hell else would come up with the idea of an anti-ballistic missile system based on a satellite and powered by a nuclear explosion?  Or even more ridiculous stuff like the <a href="http://cbs3.com/topstories/Pentagon.gay.bomb.2.284976.html" title="cbs3.com">gay bomb</a> [cbs3.com].  The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one point; one of the projects allegedly included a plan to develop some sort of time-travel based ABM device -- zap the enemy's missiles back in time so they can explode harmlessly in the past.  Seriously.  If the Iraqis are spending only $60k apiece on divining rods they are getting off cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree , but MAD is hardly the best example... in fact , it actually makes a lot of sense , despite the fact that it is , indeed , mad .
But look at some of the more ridiculous weapons exercises and theories funded by the Pentagon over the years -- who the hell else would come up with the idea of an anti-ballistic missile system based on a satellite and powered by a nuclear explosion ?
Or even more ridiculous stuff like the gay bomb [ cbs3.com ] .
The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on " psychic warfare " projects at one point ; one of the projects allegedly included a plan to develop some sort of time-travel based ABM device -- zap the enemy 's missiles back in time so they can explode harmlessly in the past .
Seriously. If the Iraqis are spending only $ 60k apiece on divining rods they are getting off cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree, but MAD is hardly the best example... in fact, it actually makes a lot of sense, despite the fact that it is, indeed, mad.
But look at some of the more ridiculous weapons exercises and theories funded by the Pentagon over the years -- who the hell else would come up with the idea of an anti-ballistic missile system based on a satellite and powered by a nuclear explosion?
Or even more ridiculous stuff like the gay bomb [cbs3.com].
The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one point; one of the projects allegedly included a plan to develop some sort of time-travel based ABM device -- zap the enemy's missiles back in time so they can explode harmlessly in the past.
Seriously.  If the Iraqis are spending only $60k apiece on divining rods they are getting off cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990684</id>
	<title>Re:So What? We use "Lie Detectors".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We may use lie detectors, but lie detector results aren't admissible evidence in court (which brings up why we even have them, but anyway).<br>These guys are using "technology" that doesn't actually do *anything* as a basis for stops and searches.</p><p>I think there's a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We may use lie detectors , but lie detector results are n't admissible evidence in court ( which brings up why we even have them , but anyway ) .These guys are using " technology " that does n't actually do * anything * as a basis for stops and searches.I think there 's a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We may use lie detectors, but lie detector results aren't admissible evidence in court (which brings up why we even have them, but anyway).These guys are using "technology" that doesn't actually do *anything* as a basis for stops and searches.I think there's a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989734</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol.<br>Sounds like a great business to be in.  Just provide service within an area covering an aquifer which meets the requirements!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol.Sounds like a great business to be in .
Just provide service within an area covering an aquifer which meets the requirements !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol.Sounds like a great business to be in.
Just provide service within an area covering an aquifer which meets the requirements!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</id>
	<title>Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they shouldn't be allowed to have the bomb. On the plus side, there an easier target.</p><p>Maybe I should sell them my ballistic missile protection rock. Only 10 million dollars, and if you are hit by an ICBM contact me for a full refund.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they should n't be allowed to have the bomb .
On the plus side , there an easier target.Maybe I should sell them my ballistic missile protection rock .
Only 10 million dollars , and if you are hit by an ICBM contact me for a full refund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they shouldn't be allowed to have the bomb.
On the plus side, there an easier target.Maybe I should sell them my ballistic missile protection rock.
Only 10 million dollars, and if you are hit by an ICBM contact me for a full refund.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996138</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1257442920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say even less then that.  Even relatively minor things such as border disputes or small scale conflicts require far more thought and consideration of worth if both sides are packing enough nukes to wipe out the other and claim to be willing to do so.</p><p>Someone wouldn't have needed to otherwise be willing to commit the other country to nuclear holocaust for MAD to have worked.  Someone would have just needed to think more carefully before taking any action to provoke the other side on any issue that might have otherwise escalated in lieu of an answer to "What are they going to do about it?".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say even less then that .
Even relatively minor things such as border disputes or small scale conflicts require far more thought and consideration of worth if both sides are packing enough nukes to wipe out the other and claim to be willing to do so.Someone would n't have needed to otherwise be willing to commit the other country to nuclear holocaust for MAD to have worked .
Someone would have just needed to think more carefully before taking any action to provoke the other side on any issue that might have otherwise escalated in lieu of an answer to " What are they going to do about it ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say even less then that.
Even relatively minor things such as border disputes or small scale conflicts require far more thought and consideration of worth if both sides are packing enough nukes to wipe out the other and claim to be willing to do so.Someone wouldn't have needed to otherwise be willing to commit the other country to nuclear holocaust for MAD to have worked.
Someone would have just needed to think more carefully before taking any action to provoke the other side on any issue that might have otherwise escalated in lieu of an answer to "What are they going to do about it?
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994022</id>
	<title>The One Time Dousing Worked</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1257432180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was only one time that Dousing worked: <a href="http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-05-14/" title="dilbert.com">http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-05-14/</a> [dilbert.com]</p><p>As a side note, I've long said that I could have been rich had I not had any morals and had become a spammer.  Now, I guess I can add selling dousing equipment to the list.  Curse my parents for raising me the right way! I could have been a millionaire were it not for these pesky morals!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was only one time that Dousing worked : http : //www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-05-14/ [ dilbert.com ] As a side note , I 've long said that I could have been rich had I not had any morals and had become a spammer .
Now , I guess I can add selling dousing equipment to the list .
Curse my parents for raising me the right way !
I could have been a millionaire were it not for these pesky morals !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was only one time that Dousing worked: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-05-14/ [dilbert.com]As a side note, I've long said that I could have been rich had I not had any morals and had become a spammer.
Now, I guess I can add selling dousing equipment to the list.
Curse my parents for raising me the right way!
I could have been a millionaire were it not for these pesky morals!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991406</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a scammer. This is a variant of the boy/girl scam where the scammer guesses using magic powers if your newborn is a boy or a girl for x dollars say and gives you back 1.5x dollars if he's wrong. By probability he will end up making money. If he's been doing this for 20years he should go to prison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a scammer .
This is a variant of the boy/girl scam where the scammer guesses using magic powers if your newborn is a boy or a girl for x dollars say and gives you back 1.5x dollars if he 's wrong .
By probability he will end up making money .
If he 's been doing this for 20years he should go to prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a scammer.
This is a variant of the boy/girl scam where the scammer guesses using magic powers if your newborn is a boy or a girl for x dollars say and gives you back 1.5x dollars if he's wrong.
By probability he will end up making money.
If he's been doing this for 20years he should go to prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995942</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1257442020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we're seeing here.</p></div><p>You'd be wrong.  There's some very sound game-theoretic reasons that MAD is a stable state for international relations.  Certainly much more stable (especially if you like living under a free society) than the alternative of only one side having the Bomb -- and if you need a real-world example, just look at all the countries (e.g. Iran) which have nuclear-armed neighbors and want the increased security of MAD.</p><p>For that matter, you could read Daniel Abraham's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Summer-Long-Price-Quartet/dp/0765351870/ref=sr\_1\_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257438284&amp;sr=8-2" title="amazon.com">Long Price Quartet</a> [amazon.com] (that's book 1 of 4), which among other things is basically about what happens under non-MAD conditions when there's a nuclear hegemon, and how other nations react to that reality.  (If you're actually considering this and aren't a fantasy reader generally, you can probably just start with book 3.)</p><p>And, anyway, MAD so far has a 100\% success rate of preventing nuclear war.  In fact, a lot more people have died from asymmetric warfare from a non-nuclear-enabled player (e.g. US-al Qaeda relations) than from MAD...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we 're seeing here.You 'd be wrong .
There 's some very sound game-theoretic reasons that MAD is a stable state for international relations .
Certainly much more stable ( especially if you like living under a free society ) than the alternative of only one side having the Bomb -- and if you need a real-world example , just look at all the countries ( e.g .
Iran ) which have nuclear-armed neighbors and want the increased security of MAD.For that matter , you could read Daniel Abraham 's Long Price Quartet [ amazon.com ] ( that 's book 1 of 4 ) , which among other things is basically about what happens under non-MAD conditions when there 's a nuclear hegemon , and how other nations react to that reality .
( If you 're actually considering this and are n't a fantasy reader generally , you can probably just start with book 3 .
) And , anyway , MAD so far has a 100 \ % success rate of preventing nuclear war .
In fact , a lot more people have died from asymmetric warfare from a non-nuclear-enabled player ( e.g .
US-al Qaeda relations ) than from MAD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we're seeing here.You'd be wrong.
There's some very sound game-theoretic reasons that MAD is a stable state for international relations.
Certainly much more stable (especially if you like living under a free society) than the alternative of only one side having the Bomb -- and if you need a real-world example, just look at all the countries (e.g.
Iran) which have nuclear-armed neighbors and want the increased security of MAD.For that matter, you could read Daniel Abraham's Long Price Quartet [amazon.com] (that's book 1 of 4), which among other things is basically about what happens under non-MAD conditions when there's a nuclear hegemon, and how other nations react to that reality.
(If you're actually considering this and aren't a fantasy reader generally, you can probably just start with book 3.
)And, anyway, MAD so far has a 100\% success rate of preventing nuclear war.
In fact, a lot more people have died from asymmetric warfare from a non-nuclear-enabled player (e.g.
US-al Qaeda relations) than from MAD...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990240</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>roguetrick</author>
	<datestamp>1257005340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not being cynical to define what the man is doing as bunk.  Most dowsers are not being decietful, they are under a combination of the ideomotor effect and confirmation bias.  The very interesting thing about them is that they may have a genuine expertise at finding water through more mundane means, and the dowsing is the channel they show that through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not being cynical to define what the man is doing as bunk .
Most dowsers are not being decietful , they are under a combination of the ideomotor effect and confirmation bias .
The very interesting thing about them is that they may have a genuine expertise at finding water through more mundane means , and the dowsing is the channel they show that through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not being cynical to define what the man is doing as bunk.
Most dowsers are not being decietful, they are under a combination of the ideomotor effect and confirmation bias.
The very interesting thing about them is that they may have a genuine expertise at finding water through more mundane means, and the dowsing is the channel they show that through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002822</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1257438360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one point</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yes, and I Stare At Goats too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on " psychic warfare " projects at one point Yes , and I Stare At Goats too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one point

Yes, and I Stare At Goats too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992162</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1257413220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Agree, but MAD is hardly the best example...</p></div><p>Yeah... I must be badanalogyguy in disguise.  Not the best comparison (by far), I just wanted to point out that while the Iraqis are doing stupid things with bomb detectors, we were setting up a situation where we and Russia would do much stupider things with much bigger bombs, so implying we can be trusted with those same bigger bombs but the Iraqis can't is absurd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree , but MAD is hardly the best example...Yeah... I must be badanalogyguy in disguise .
Not the best comparison ( by far ) , I just wanted to point out that while the Iraqis are doing stupid things with bomb detectors , we were setting up a situation where we and Russia would do much stupider things with much bigger bombs , so implying we can be trusted with those same bigger bombs but the Iraqis ca n't is absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree, but MAD is hardly the best example...Yeah... I must be badanalogyguy in disguise.
Not the best comparison (by far), I just wanted to point out that while the Iraqis are doing stupid things with bomb detectors, we were setting up a situation where we and Russia would do much stupider things with much bigger bombs, so implying we can be trusted with those same bigger bombs but the Iraqis can't is absurd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993878</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257431580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with MAD is that it requires all players to act rationally all of the time.  If one player acts irrationally once then everyone dies.  That's not to say I have a better solution for the cold war, just that the eventual outcome of MAD as the only strategy is everyone dying, which is generally not regarded as ideal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with MAD is that it requires all players to act rationally all of the time .
If one player acts irrationally once then everyone dies .
That 's not to say I have a better solution for the cold war , just that the eventual outcome of MAD as the only strategy is everyone dying , which is generally not regarded as ideal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with MAD is that it requires all players to act rationally all of the time.
If one player acts irrationally once then everyone dies.
That's not to say I have a better solution for the cold war, just that the eventual outcome of MAD as the only strategy is everyone dying, which is generally not regarded as ideal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989228</id>
	<title>Not so different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a hilarious quote.  See?  They're not so different from us after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a hilarious quote .
See ? They 're not so different from us after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a hilarious quote.
See?  They're not so different from us after all.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990070</id>
	<title>Re:What this shows</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1257004320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup...  The United state population that firmly believes in Ghosts, will buy useless shit like this on a REGULAR BASIS, oh and believes that a corporation wont screw with your vote in their voting machines that are Secret inside!</p><p>The general public is ragingly gullible. This is a given across the board from the USA to Underland, to that little country with one moron waving his tic tac toe flag and calls himself mister gumby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup... The United state population that firmly believes in Ghosts , will buy useless shit like this on a REGULAR BASIS , oh and believes that a corporation wont screw with your vote in their voting machines that are Secret inside ! The general public is ragingly gullible .
This is a given across the board from the USA to Underland , to that little country with one moron waving his tic tac toe flag and calls himself mister gumby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup...  The United state population that firmly believes in Ghosts, will buy useless shit like this on a REGULAR BASIS, oh and believes that a corporation wont screw with your vote in their voting machines that are Secret inside!The general public is ragingly gullible.
This is a given across the board from the USA to Underland, to that little country with one moron waving his tic tac toe flag and calls himself mister gumby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1257000480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?</p></div><p>They have oil, and lots of it. As do their neighbours. You seriously have not heard? There is no other reason.<br>The US alone uses something like 20 million barrels a day and rising, while production is well under half that and falling.<br>That's a billion dollars per day, and set to rise dramatically as production fails to rise with global demand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should our good men and ( and a few women ) have to die to 'help ' these people ? They have oil , and lots of it .
As do their neighbours .
You seriously have not heard ?
There is no other reason.The US alone uses something like 20 million barrels a day and rising , while production is well under half that and falling.That 's a billion dollars per day , and set to rise dramatically as production fails to rise with global demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?They have oil, and lots of it.
As do their neighbours.
You seriously have not heard?
There is no other reason.The US alone uses something like 20 million barrels a day and rising, while production is well under half that and falling.That's a billion dollars per day, and set to rise dramatically as production fails to rise with global demand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991550</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction? It seems pretty much self evident that two rival powers with the capability to destroy each other utterly would be deterred from striking first. And it worked well in practice.</p><p>Of course it would be nice if we'd sat down with the Stalin and sang kumbaya and eaten s'mores like at Summer Camp, but in the absence of that possibility a relatively peaceful stalemate based on Nash's Equilibrium seems like a better option than either an all out war or getting overrun by a totalitarian regime that had already starved millions of its own people to death and had already conquered Eastern Europe.</p><p>How would you have handled the Cold War?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction ?
It seems pretty much self evident that two rival powers with the capability to destroy each other utterly would be deterred from striking first .
And it worked well in practice.Of course it would be nice if we 'd sat down with the Stalin and sang kumbaya and eaten s'mores like at Summer Camp , but in the absence of that possibility a relatively peaceful stalemate based on Nash 's Equilibrium seems like a better option than either an all out war or getting overrun by a totalitarian regime that had already starved millions of its own people to death and had already conquered Eastern Europe.How would you have handled the Cold War ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction?
It seems pretty much self evident that two rival powers with the capability to destroy each other utterly would be deterred from striking first.
And it worked well in practice.Of course it would be nice if we'd sat down with the Stalin and sang kumbaya and eaten s'mores like at Summer Camp, but in the absence of that possibility a relatively peaceful stalemate based on Nash's Equilibrium seems like a better option than either an all out war or getting overrun by a totalitarian regime that had already starved millions of its own people to death and had already conquered Eastern Europe.How would you have handled the Cold War?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996832</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1257446280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the military would quite like to defend us from nuclear attack through a variety of techniques.  It's the Democrats who think mutually assured destruction is fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the military would quite like to defend us from nuclear attack through a variety of techniques .
It 's the Democrats who think mutually assured destruction is fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the military would quite like to defend us from nuclear attack through a variety of techniques.
It's the Democrats who think mutually assured destruction is fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994222</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257433380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah. As Iraq now officially is a US colony, they (the US) are in fact the ones who actually HAVE <em>thousands of nukes</em>. AND they are the only ones, who <em>ever</em> were douchy enough to actually use them! On innocent people too!</p><p>And they want others not to have them... Yeah right! Because it's so hard to enslave countries if you're not the only side who has nukes.</p><p>Sorry, but if you have nukes, you thereby lost the right to tell others not to have them.<br>And about the "crazy president and extremistic freaks in the background": Two words: Bush and Cheney! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah .
As Iraq now officially is a US colony , they ( the US ) are in fact the ones who actually HAVE thousands of nukes .
AND they are the only ones , who ever were douchy enough to actually use them !
On innocent people too ! And they want others not to have them... Yeah right !
Because it 's so hard to enslave countries if you 're not the only side who has nukes.Sorry , but if you have nukes , you thereby lost the right to tell others not to have them.And about the " crazy president and extremistic freaks in the background " : Two words : Bush and Cheney !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah.
As Iraq now officially is a US colony, they (the US) are in fact the ones who actually HAVE thousands of nukes.
AND they are the only ones, who ever were douchy enough to actually use them!
On innocent people too!And they want others not to have them... Yeah right!
Because it's so hard to enslave countries if you're not the only side who has nukes.Sorry, but if you have nukes, you thereby lost the right to tell others not to have them.And about the "crazy president and extremistic freaks in the background": Two words: Bush and Cheney!
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998368</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>myrdos2</author>
	<datestamp>1257453120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's another explanation. What if George Bush is, in fact, an idiot who believes the words coming out of his own mouth? All of a sudden, everything falls into place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's another explanation .
What if George Bush is , in fact , an idiot who believes the words coming out of his own mouth ?
All of a sudden , everything falls into place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's another explanation.
What if George Bush is, in fact, an idiot who believes the words coming out of his own mouth?
All of a sudden, everything falls into place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989636</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>ShawnDoc</author>
	<datestamp>1257000900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow.  If you heard it from a co-worker, it must be true!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
If you heard it from a co-worker , it must be true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
If you heard it from a co-worker, it must be true!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990024</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1257003960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I hear these things work on the same principle:</p><p>"Of course it works!  Abdul was only using it for 5 minutes before he stepped on that IED!  Ahmed was manning the checkpoint for just 7 minutes before he got sent to Paradise!  It's been one success after another!"</p><p>Also, a ministry insider told me that they'd get quadruple their money back if any of the operators survived.  Hasn't been a problem so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I hear these things work on the same principle : " Of course it works !
Abdul was only using it for 5 minutes before he stepped on that IED !
Ahmed was manning the checkpoint for just 7 minutes before he got sent to Paradise !
It 's been one success after another !
" Also , a ministry insider told me that they 'd get quadruple their money back if any of the operators survived .
Has n't been a problem so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I hear these things work on the same principle:"Of course it works!
Abdul was only using it for 5 minutes before he stepped on that IED!
Ahmed was manning the checkpoint for just 7 minutes before he got sent to Paradise!
It's been one success after another!
"Also, a ministry insider told me that they'd get quadruple their money back if any of the operators survived.
Hasn't been a problem so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991084</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Radtoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257012180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unlike in 1900, there's nuclear power, filters for fine dust coal particles, the possibility to more efficiently use wood and wind power, and more - even the fertilizers can be effectively replaced, including the inorganic ones, as there's no direct dependency on oil (neither on its byproduct natural gas, which is actually what's used - even inorganic fertilizer can and has been produced without it).
<br>
If there's a transition period rather than an immediate cut-off (and loosing Iraq does not equal a total loss of all oil sources), we can survive this change with only some years lost in economic growth. And that's only if the immense investments in "new" areas don't come with important break-throughs that actually boost the economy (thinking of fusion and fission here, and be it just the giant ball of fire in the sky).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike in 1900 , there 's nuclear power , filters for fine dust coal particles , the possibility to more efficiently use wood and wind power , and more - even the fertilizers can be effectively replaced , including the inorganic ones , as there 's no direct dependency on oil ( neither on its byproduct natural gas , which is actually what 's used - even inorganic fertilizer can and has been produced without it ) .
If there 's a transition period rather than an immediate cut-off ( and loosing Iraq does not equal a total loss of all oil sources ) , we can survive this change with only some years lost in economic growth .
And that 's only if the immense investments in " new " areas do n't come with important break-throughs that actually boost the economy ( thinking of fusion and fission here , and be it just the giant ball of fire in the sky ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike in 1900, there's nuclear power, filters for fine dust coal particles, the possibility to more efficiently use wood and wind power, and more - even the fertilizers can be effectively replaced, including the inorganic ones, as there's no direct dependency on oil (neither on its byproduct natural gas, which is actually what's used - even inorganic fertilizer can and has been produced without it).
If there's a transition period rather than an immediate cut-off (and loosing Iraq does not equal a total loss of all oil sources), we can survive this change with only some years lost in economic growth.
And that's only if the immense investments in "new" areas don't come with important break-throughs that actually boost the economy (thinking of fusion and fission here, and be it just the giant ball of fire in the sky).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995124</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1257438060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Confirmation of the success of MAD could only come from the testimony of people who could and would confirm that they did not launch nuclear attacks against (US/USSR) due to fear of massive reprisal."</p><p>Since, in the absence of massive reprisal it would have made perfectly good sense for either the Soviets or the US to wipe out their opposite (atmospheric testing proved nuclear war is quite practical!) that we didn't incinerate each other indicates MAD had reduced the chance of winning to unacceptable levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Confirmation of the success of MAD could only come from the testimony of people who could and would confirm that they did not launch nuclear attacks against ( US/USSR ) due to fear of massive reprisal .
" Since , in the absence of massive reprisal it would have made perfectly good sense for either the Soviets or the US to wipe out their opposite ( atmospheric testing proved nuclear war is quite practical !
) that we did n't incinerate each other indicates MAD had reduced the chance of winning to unacceptable levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Confirmation of the success of MAD could only come from the testimony of people who could and would confirm that they did not launch nuclear attacks against (US/USSR) due to fear of massive reprisal.
"Since, in the absence of massive reprisal it would have made perfectly good sense for either the Soviets or the US to wipe out their opposite (atmospheric testing proved nuclear war is quite practical!
) that we didn't incinerate each other indicates MAD had reduced the chance of winning to unacceptable levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993106</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>hughperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1257424320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, I know you believe what you just wrote, but I<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well... I have a few doubts over this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<p>

Looking at the issue of generating power, there are several choices available, and coal is one of those, but so also is nuclear, wind and solar.  They're more expensive, and any tiny amount more expensive than oil means they wont be used right now, but they're not *massively* more expensive, its not like ten times or even a hundred times, it's like, well here is one view of <a href="http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm" title="nucleartourist.com" rel="nofollow">coal vs nuclear</a> [nucleartourist.com] which evalutes it as 30 dollars per megawatt hour instead of 29.1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>

Next, you discussed distribution of power, specifically I felt you feel that using coal to generate power means that it's no longer possible to power machinery on farms, or to power transport.</p><p>

Even today, we have electric powered:</p><ul>
<li> <a href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric\_locomotive" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">trains</a> [slashdot.org] </li><li> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/mar/06/london-underground-history-northern-line-construction" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">subways</a> [guardian.co.uk] </li><li> <a href="http://www.teslamotors.com/" title="teslamotors.com" rel="nofollow">cars</a> [teslamotors.com] </li><li> <a href="http://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/.../Electric\_Bicycle.html" title="alibaba.com" rel="nofollow">bicyles</a> [alibaba.com] </li><li>... I'm going to stop this list, because it looks like spam<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</li></ul><p>

It seems reasonable to suppose that if we wished to, we could make electrically powered farm machinery too.  Sure, there may be issues, like disposing of old batteries, but they are not I feel insurmountable issues, and I feel they are not issues that will push our civilisation back to the dawn of the 1900s are you are proposing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I know you believe what you just wrote , but I ... well... I have a few doubts over this ; - ) Looking at the issue of generating power , there are several choices available , and coal is one of those , but so also is nuclear , wind and solar .
They 're more expensive , and any tiny amount more expensive than oil means they wont be used right now , but they 're not * massively * more expensive , its not like ten times or even a hundred times , it 's like , well here is one view of coal vs nuclear [ nucleartourist.com ] which evalutes it as 30 dollars per megawatt hour instead of 29.1 .. . Next , you discussed distribution of power , specifically I felt you feel that using coal to generate power means that it 's no longer possible to power machinery on farms , or to power transport .
Even today , we have electric powered : trains [ slashdot.org ] subways [ guardian.co.uk ] cars [ teslamotors.com ] bicyles [ alibaba.com ] ... I 'm going to stop this list , because it looks like spam ; - ) It seems reasonable to suppose that if we wished to , we could make electrically powered farm machinery too .
Sure , there may be issues , like disposing of old batteries , but they are not I feel insurmountable issues , and I feel they are not issues that will push our civilisation back to the dawn of the 1900s are you are proposing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I know you believe what you just wrote, but I ... well... I have a few doubts over this ;-)

Looking at the issue of generating power, there are several choices available, and coal is one of those, but so also is nuclear, wind and solar.
They're more expensive, and any tiny amount more expensive than oil means they wont be used right now, but they're not *massively* more expensive, its not like ten times or even a hundred times, it's like, well here is one view of coal vs nuclear [nucleartourist.com] which evalutes it as 30 dollars per megawatt hour instead of 29.1 ...

Next, you discussed distribution of power, specifically I felt you feel that using coal to generate power means that it's no longer possible to power machinery on farms, or to power transport.
Even today, we have electric powered:
 trains [slashdot.org]  subways [guardian.co.uk]  cars [teslamotors.com]  bicyles [alibaba.com] ... I'm going to stop this list, because it looks like spam ;-)

It seems reasonable to suppose that if we wished to, we could make electrically powered farm machinery too.
Sure, there may be issues, like disposing of old batteries, but they are not I feel insurmountable issues, and I feel they are not issues that will push our civilisation back to the dawn of the 1900s are you are proposing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990636</id>
	<title>Here's how to do the trick.</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1257008340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>He proceeded to cut a <b>Y-shaped </b>branch from a tree and dowse our property</i>...<br> <i>But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining, curving, living thing as it dived toward the ground. In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it. </i> <p>Yes, you can. Ever so slightly - those old guys got the trick down - <i>twists</i> <b>both sides</b> of the  'Y' that they're holding. The end will point down just as you said. </p><p>It's an easy trick. Try it! With practice you can do it with just a slight twist with the fingers and no one will notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He proceeded to cut a Y-shaped branch from a tree and dowse our property... But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining , curving , living thing as it dived toward the ground .
In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it , and did it .
Yes , you can .
Ever so slightly - those old guys got the trick down - twists both sides of the 'Y ' that they 're holding .
The end will point down just as you said .
It 's an easy trick .
Try it !
With practice you can do it with just a slight twist with the fingers and no one will notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He proceeded to cut a Y-shaped branch from a tree and dowse our property... But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining, curving, living thing as it dived toward the ground.
In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.
Yes, you can.
Ever so slightly - those old guys got the trick down - twists both sides of the  'Y' that they're holding.
The end will point down just as you said.
It's an easy trick.
Try it!
With practice you can do it with just a slight twist with the fingers and no one will notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989304</id>
	<title>In a target-rich environment? Sure!</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1256999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even a stopped clock's minute hand is right 24 times a day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even a stopped clock 's minute hand is right 24 times a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even a stopped clock's minute hand is right 24 times a day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998184</id>
	<title>Re:Works very simply</title>
	<author>kjshark</author>
	<datestamp>1257452400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bugs bunny had this job. Her hit the bomb with a hammer. When it didn't go off, he stamped it "DUD".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bugs bunny had this job .
Her hit the bomb with a hammer .
When it did n't go off , he stamped it " DUD " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bugs bunny had this job.
Her hit the bomb with a hammer.
When it didn't go off, he stamped it "DUD".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991660</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1257017820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you mind pointing out the actual hypocrisy that you're perceiving?  Let me see if I understand you: "1. You enjoy the benefits of oil. 2. You don't want people to die to ensure cheap access to that oil. 3. Therefore you're a hypocrite."  I'm completely missing how 1 and 2 lead to 3.  Isn't it possible that I want to pay more for oil?  Or that I want our country to work to eliminate our dependence on oil?  Or I believe that fighting for the oil is actually a terrible way to accomplish our goals?  Why, if I enjoy the benefits of oil, must I accept sending our military abroad to fight for it?

</p><p>Do you actually have a point, or are you just enjoying pretending to have won a point against them filthy city dwellin' lib'ruls?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you mind pointing out the actual hypocrisy that you 're perceiving ?
Let me see if I understand you : " 1 .
You enjoy the benefits of oil .
2. You do n't want people to die to ensure cheap access to that oil .
3. Therefore you 're a hypocrite .
" I 'm completely missing how 1 and 2 lead to 3 .
Is n't it possible that I want to pay more for oil ?
Or that I want our country to work to eliminate our dependence on oil ?
Or I believe that fighting for the oil is actually a terrible way to accomplish our goals ?
Why , if I enjoy the benefits of oil , must I accept sending our military abroad to fight for it ?
Do you actually have a point , or are you just enjoying pretending to have won a point against them filthy city dwellin ' lib'ruls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you mind pointing out the actual hypocrisy that you're perceiving?
Let me see if I understand you: "1.
You enjoy the benefits of oil.
2. You don't want people to die to ensure cheap access to that oil.
3. Therefore you're a hypocrite.
"  I'm completely missing how 1 and 2 lead to 3.
Isn't it possible that I want to pay more for oil?
Or that I want our country to work to eliminate our dependence on oil?
Or I believe that fighting for the oil is actually a terrible way to accomplish our goals?
Why, if I enjoy the benefits of oil, must I accept sending our military abroad to fight for it?
Do you actually have a point, or are you just enjoying pretending to have won a point against them filthy city dwellin' lib'ruls?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995200</id>
	<title>High degree of false positives</title>
	<author>meadowsoft</author>
	<datestamp>1257438480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you can pretty much hit a landmine by walking into a random patch of Iraqi desert and throwing a rock, I don't find it surprising that any land mine sensing divining rod would have at least some random chance of success.  I think that past research has shown that any tool that is picking arbitrary points on a grid will find positive results for "hidden" items (explosive or not) with a frequency of occurrence that matches the normal distribution.  I encourage you to read The Drunkard's Walk by Leonard Mlodinow for a better description than I can give.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you can pretty much hit a landmine by walking into a random patch of Iraqi desert and throwing a rock , I do n't find it surprising that any land mine sensing divining rod would have at least some random chance of success .
I think that past research has shown that any tool that is picking arbitrary points on a grid will find positive results for " hidden " items ( explosive or not ) with a frequency of occurrence that matches the normal distribution .
I encourage you to read The Drunkard 's Walk by Leonard Mlodinow for a better description than I can give .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you can pretty much hit a landmine by walking into a random patch of Iraqi desert and throwing a rock, I don't find it surprising that any land mine sensing divining rod would have at least some random chance of success.
I think that past research has shown that any tool that is picking arbitrary points on a grid will find positive results for "hidden" items (explosive or not) with a frequency of occurrence that matches the normal distribution.
I encourage you to read The Drunkard's Walk by Leonard Mlodinow for a better description than I can give.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992392</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1257416100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>develop some sort of time-travel based ABM device -- zap the enemy's missiles back in time so they can explode harmlessly in the past. Seriously.</p></div><p>No, no, no.  They've got it all wrong.  You zap them a few seconds into the FUTURE, assuming they maintain their position during the shift, then the Earth will have moved away from them and they will be left to burn up in the atmosphere on reentry.</p><p>If OTOH the time-travel ABM system works in such a fashion that the missiles maintain their inertial motion, shift them forward in time (or backwards) such that the earth's rotation places an enemy installation in their path (as the rotation is non-inertial motion).</p><p>Can't those Pentagon monkeys get anything right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>develop some sort of time-travel based ABM device -- zap the enemy 's missiles back in time so they can explode harmlessly in the past .
Seriously.No , no , no .
They 've got it all wrong .
You zap them a few seconds into the FUTURE , assuming they maintain their position during the shift , then the Earth will have moved away from them and they will be left to burn up in the atmosphere on reentry.If OTOH the time-travel ABM system works in such a fashion that the missiles maintain their inertial motion , shift them forward in time ( or backwards ) such that the earth 's rotation places an enemy installation in their path ( as the rotation is non-inertial motion ) .Ca n't those Pentagon monkeys get anything right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>develop some sort of time-travel based ABM device -- zap the enemy's missiles back in time so they can explode harmlessly in the past.
Seriously.No, no, no.
They've got it all wrong.
You zap them a few seconds into the FUTURE, assuming they maintain their position during the shift, then the Earth will have moved away from them and they will be left to burn up in the atmosphere on reentry.If OTOH the time-travel ABM system works in such a fashion that the missiles maintain their inertial motion, shift them forward in time (or backwards) such that the earth's rotation places an enemy installation in their path (as the rotation is non-inertial motion).Can't those Pentagon monkeys get anything right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990940</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1257010980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;On the other hand, if they really do believe that these devices work, then the bombers may share those beliefs. That, also, could deter bombings.</p><p>This Israeli guy I know, big biomechanics guy, has worked on gait-analysis systems for Israel. You see, a guy who has a bunch of explosives strapped to his waist walks differently from someone normally. The system flags people down as they go through a checkpoint, and get searched and wanded more extensively than the normal line. When I asked him why they don't just blow up the security checkpoint people then, he said that just knowing the detection systems are there is enough to deter suicide bombings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; On the other hand , if they really do believe that these devices work , then the bombers may share those beliefs .
That , also , could deter bombings.This Israeli guy I know , big biomechanics guy , has worked on gait-analysis systems for Israel .
You see , a guy who has a bunch of explosives strapped to his waist walks differently from someone normally .
The system flags people down as they go through a checkpoint , and get searched and wanded more extensively than the normal line .
When I asked him why they do n't just blow up the security checkpoint people then , he said that just knowing the detection systems are there is enough to deter suicide bombings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;On the other hand, if they really do believe that these devices work, then the bombers may share those beliefs.
That, also, could deter bombings.This Israeli guy I know, big biomechanics guy, has worked on gait-analysis systems for Israel.
You see, a guy who has a bunch of explosives strapped to his waist walks differently from someone normally.
The system flags people down as they go through a checkpoint, and get searched and wanded more extensively than the normal line.
When I asked him why they don't just blow up the security checkpoint people then, he said that just knowing the detection systems are there is enough to deter suicide bombings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997006</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>senior-swine</author>
	<datestamp>1257447240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found the device for sale here <a href="http://atscllc.en.ecplaza.net/1/product.asp" title="ecplaza.net" rel="nofollow">http://atscllc.en.ecplaza.net/1/product.asp</a> [ecplaza.net] it lists the following features:
"<br> <i> <b>Product Feature</b> <br>
Non-Vapor<br>
Overt or Covert operation<br>
Detection range exceeding 1000 metres!* (in ideal conditions)<br>
Can detect all current known drug &amp; explosive based substances."</i> <br>
Awesome...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found the device for sale here http : //atscllc.en.ecplaza.net/1/product.asp [ ecplaza.net ] it lists the following features : " Product Feature Non-Vapor Overt or Covert operation Detection range exceeding 1000 metres !
* ( in ideal conditions ) Can detect all current known drug &amp; explosive based substances .
" Awesome.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found the device for sale here http://atscllc.en.ecplaza.net/1/product.asp [ecplaza.net] it lists the following features:
"  Product Feature 
Non-Vapor
Overt or Covert operation
Detection range exceeding 1000 metres!
* (in ideal conditions)
Can detect all current known drug &amp; explosive based substances.
" 
Awesome...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989840</id>
	<title>Re:So What? We use "Lie Detectors".</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257002640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick search suggests that polygraphs normally outperform random chance.  By how much seems to be highly variable.</p><p>It appears the scientific evidence is that polygraphy is not sufficiently sensitive or specific to be useful as legal evidence, but there's a big difference between a functional but inaccurate technique (i.e. one that outperforms guessing) and one that doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick search suggests that polygraphs normally outperform random chance .
By how much seems to be highly variable.It appears the scientific evidence is that polygraphy is not sufficiently sensitive or specific to be useful as legal evidence , but there 's a big difference between a functional but inaccurate technique ( i.e .
one that outperforms guessing ) and one that does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick search suggests that polygraphs normally outperform random chance.
By how much seems to be highly variable.It appears the scientific evidence is that polygraphy is not sufficiently sensitive or specific to be useful as legal evidence, but there's a big difference between a functional but inaccurate technique (i.e.
one that outperforms guessing) and one that doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993722</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>alcmaeon</author>
	<datestamp>1257430740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is your point that people can only criticize a system if they remove themselves from it entirely?  That seems kind of silly.</p><p>In your view, can we only criticize Windows if we switch to Macs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is your point that people can only criticize a system if they remove themselves from it entirely ?
That seems kind of silly.In your view , can we only criticize Windows if we switch to Macs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is your point that people can only criticize a system if they remove themselves from it entirely?
That seems kind of silly.In your view, can we only criticize Windows if we switch to Macs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990950</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257011040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, some high ranking general in charge of getting the country rid of explosives deciding that using rods to detect these explosives is SOOOOOOO equivalent to charlatans making a living by telling gullible people's future or dumbasses looking for ghost voices in noise on audio tapes.

</p><p>The only valid American comparison would be abstinence-only programs. They're the only valid comparison because they are sponsored by the government as the only solution to a problem and that's a completely useless solution, or if you prefer a terrible substitute for a solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , some high ranking general in charge of getting the country rid of explosives deciding that using rods to detect these explosives is SOOOOOOO equivalent to charlatans making a living by telling gullible people 's future or dumbasses looking for ghost voices in noise on audio tapes .
The only valid American comparison would be abstinence-only programs .
They 're the only valid comparison because they are sponsored by the government as the only solution to a problem and that 's a completely useless solution , or if you prefer a terrible substitute for a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, some high ranking general in charge of getting the country rid of explosives deciding that using rods to detect these explosives is SOOOOOOO equivalent to charlatans making a living by telling gullible people's future or dumbasses looking for ghost voices in noise on audio tapes.
The only valid American comparison would be abstinence-only programs.
They're the only valid comparison because they are sponsored by the government as the only solution to a problem and that's a completely useless solution, or if you prefer a terrible substitute for a solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989640</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1257000960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that an iROCK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that an iROCK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that an iROCK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242</id>
	<title>This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1256998860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should our good men and ( and a few women ) have to die to 'help ' these people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990402</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>Sarten-X</author>
	<datestamp>1257006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought on reading the article is that it's a great (and probably working) detection tool, for finding people who are carrying bombs. Not the bombs themselves, mind you, but just the people carrying them. The "detector" acts as a trigger to provide yet another moment for the carrier to appear nervous, and hopefully be noticed by someone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought on reading the article is that it 's a great ( and probably working ) detection tool , for finding people who are carrying bombs .
Not the bombs themselves , mind you , but just the people carrying them .
The " detector " acts as a trigger to provide yet another moment for the carrier to appear nervous , and hopefully be noticed by someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought on reading the article is that it's a great (and probably working) detection tool, for finding people who are carrying bombs.
Not the bombs themselves, mind you, but just the people carrying them.
The "detector" acts as a trigger to provide yet another moment for the carrier to appear nervous, and hopefully be noticed by someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989888</id>
	<title>Seen this before!</title>
	<author>mr100percent</author>
	<datestamp>1257003000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Michael Shermer, famous Skeptic, gave a <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael\_shermer\_on\_believing\_strange\_things.html" title="ted.com">TED speech</a> [ted.com] on "why people believe strange things." He actually brought one of those detectors out on stage, and said that US public schools were buying it as a marijuana detector, and paying hundreds of dollars for it. Looking at the image in the article, it appears to be the same device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Shermer , famous Skeptic , gave a TED speech [ ted.com ] on " why people believe strange things .
" He actually brought one of those detectors out on stage , and said that US public schools were buying it as a marijuana detector , and paying hundreds of dollars for it .
Looking at the image in the article , it appears to be the same device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Shermer, famous Skeptic, gave a TED speech [ted.com] on "why people believe strange things.
" He actually brought one of those detectors out on stage, and said that US public schools were buying it as a marijuana detector, and paying hundreds of dollars for it.
Looking at the image in the article, it appears to be the same device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989664</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1257001140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I heard the story from my co-worker,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Maybe the diviner retired after winning all those huge prizes for proof of psychic ability?</p><p><a href="http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html" title="skepdic.com">http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html</a> [skepdic.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I heard the story from my co-worker , ...Maybe the diviner retired after winning all those huge prizes for proof of psychic ability ? http : //www.skepdic.com/randi.html [ skepdic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I heard the story from my co-worker, ...Maybe the diviner retired after winning all those huge prizes for proof of psychic ability?http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html [skepdic.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</id>
	<title>Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257000180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was living in NY, I worked with a fellow who had his well pointed out by a local Dowser.  It cost him $300 in 1990.</p><p>And for $300, he would tell you exactly where you should dig, precisely how <i>far</i> you should dig, how much water you were going to get (GPM), how long it would last, whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells.  He could also eliminate sources with salt, sulfur, iron, calcium and anything else you don't want in your water. He'd take a wire flag and write the instructions for the driller on the flag, then stick it precisely where they were supposed to drill.</p><p>The catch?</p><p>The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing, with a <i>quadruple</i> your money back if <i>anything</i> was less than what he promised.  Goes dry?  Not enough flow?  Muddy, salty, iron, sulfur?  He'll pay you $1200.</p><p>When I heard the story from my co-worker, the old fellow hadn't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he'd been doing it.  Dunno if he's still alive now, though.</p><p>And I'm not sure he'd want to try this out with explosives if he still is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was living in NY , I worked with a fellow who had his well pointed out by a local Dowser .
It cost him $ 300 in 1990.And for $ 300 , he would tell you exactly where you should dig , precisely how far you should dig , how much water you were going to get ( GPM ) , how long it would last , whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells .
He could also eliminate sources with salt , sulfur , iron , calcium and anything else you do n't want in your water .
He 'd take a wire flag and write the instructions for the driller on the flag , then stick it precisely where they were supposed to drill.The catch ? The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing , with a quadruple your money back if anything was less than what he promised .
Goes dry ?
Not enough flow ?
Muddy , salty , iron , sulfur ?
He 'll pay you $ 1200.When I heard the story from my co-worker , the old fellow had n't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he 'd been doing it .
Dunno if he 's still alive now , though.And I 'm not sure he 'd want to try this out with explosives if he still is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was living in NY, I worked with a fellow who had his well pointed out by a local Dowser.
It cost him $300 in 1990.And for $300, he would tell you exactly where you should dig, precisely how far you should dig, how much water you were going to get (GPM), how long it would last, whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells.
He could also eliminate sources with salt, sulfur, iron, calcium and anything else you don't want in your water.
He'd take a wire flag and write the instructions for the driller on the flag, then stick it precisely where they were supposed to drill.The catch?The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing, with a quadruple your money back if anything was less than what he promised.
Goes dry?
Not enough flow?
Muddy, salty, iron, sulfur?
He'll pay you $1200.When I heard the story from my co-worker, the old fellow hadn't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he'd been doing it.
Dunno if he's still alive now, though.And I'm not sure he'd want to try this out with explosives if he still is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992924</id>
	<title>Re:Works very simply</title>
	<author>olddoc</author>
	<datestamp>1257422220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My thoughts exactly!
Iraq uses US supplied money to buy the stuff and half the price goes to the pocket of the official via a rebate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My thoughts exactly !
Iraq uses US supplied money to buy the stuff and half the price goes to the pocket of the official via a rebate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thoughts exactly!
Iraq uses US supplied money to buy the stuff and half the price goes to the pocket of the official via a rebate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989358</id>
	<title>Perhaps they work as a deterrent</title>
	<author>da cog</author>
	<datestamp>1256999340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fairness, it might be possible that these wands are actually functioning as a *mild* deterrent, if some of the terrorists have been fooled into thinking that the wands will detect their bombs.  This is not enough to justify their cost or the foolishness of relying on them alone to detect bombs, but at least it might mean that the wands aren't contributing entirely negative value to those who are using them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fairness , it might be possible that these wands are actually functioning as a * mild * deterrent , if some of the terrorists have been fooled into thinking that the wands will detect their bombs .
This is not enough to justify their cost or the foolishness of relying on them alone to detect bombs , but at least it might mean that the wands are n't contributing entirely negative value to those who are using them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fairness, it might be possible that these wands are actually functioning as a *mild* deterrent, if some of the terrorists have been fooled into thinking that the wands will detect their bombs.
This is not enough to justify their cost or the foolishness of relying on them alone to detect bombs, but at least it might mean that the wands aren't contributing entirely negative value to those who are using them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989978</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't argue with results.  Even if you would say that without the MAD doctrine we would have survived without major issues, it's impossible ot argue conclusively against that MAD didn't not work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't argue with results .
Even if you would say that without the MAD doctrine we would have survived without major issues , it 's impossible ot argue conclusively against that MAD did n't not work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't argue with results.
Even if you would say that without the MAD doctrine we would have survived without major issues, it's impossible ot argue conclusively against that MAD didn't not work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997818</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1257450960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you replace a system that works 99\% of the time with a system that works 0\% of the time?  Because no other practical solution to the problem has ever been presented.</p><p>It should be obvious that "dismantle all the nukes man" is completely impractical, as the first country to do so is at the complete mercy of any other country with nukes.  Also, the cat is already out of the bag - every nation with nukes has the ability to build new nukes at any time, and more nations are gaining that ability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you replace a system that works 99 \ % of the time with a system that works 0 \ % of the time ?
Because no other practical solution to the problem has ever been presented.It should be obvious that " dismantle all the nukes man " is completely impractical , as the first country to do so is at the complete mercy of any other country with nukes .
Also , the cat is already out of the bag - every nation with nukes has the ability to build new nukes at any time , and more nations are gaining that ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you replace a system that works 99\% of the time with a system that works 0\% of the time?
Because no other practical solution to the problem has ever been presented.It should be obvious that "dismantle all the nukes man" is completely impractical, as the first country to do so is at the complete mercy of any other country with nukes.
Also, the cat is already out of the bag - every nation with nukes has the ability to build new nukes at any time, and more nations are gaining that ability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991066</id>
	<title>Maybe that's what we need.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good old fashioned oil purge. Then the Middle Eastern nations will have no money coming in. It's pretty hard to create suicide bombers when you have no money to buy supplies or send them out and you main interest in life is killing, not furthering your people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good old fashioned oil purge .
Then the Middle Eastern nations will have no money coming in .
It 's pretty hard to create suicide bombers when you have no money to buy supplies or send them out and you main interest in life is killing , not furthering your people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good old fashioned oil purge.
Then the Middle Eastern nations will have no money coming in.
It's pretty hard to create suicide bombers when you have no money to buy supplies or send them out and you main interest in life is killing, not furthering your people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990168</id>
	<title>Buy from the Chinese</title>
	<author>dfcamara</author>
	<datestamp>1257004980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C'mon, at least buy them from the Chinese for a $100 or less a piece.</htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon , at least buy them from the Chinese for a $ 100 or less a piece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon, at least buy them from the Chinese for a $100 or less a piece.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989410</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>X-Power</author>
	<datestamp>1256999640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IRAQ is not IRAN</htmltext>
<tokenext>IRAQ is not IRAN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IRAQ is not IRAN</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993754</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257430920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do understand that Canada EXPORTS OIL right? (and a LOT OF IT).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do understand that Canada EXPORTS OIL right ?
( and a LOT OF IT ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do understand that Canada EXPORTS OIL right?
(and a LOT OF IT).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30006064</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Joey Vegetables</author>
	<datestamp>1257525960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The underlying assumption of your query appears to be that the U.S. has acted more benevolently during its reign as a global superpower than the Soviets or Germans would have.  Certainly that is what most people in the U.S. believe, but there are plenty of people in Japan, Vietnam, Central America, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan who could provide a more complete perspective.  Large, powerful governments rarely act benevolently, and the U.S. is no exception.  What actually happened - two opposing blocs each capable of preventing the other from unilaterally dominating the world - was far from the worst possible outcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The underlying assumption of your query appears to be that the U.S. has acted more benevolently during its reign as a global superpower than the Soviets or Germans would have .
Certainly that is what most people in the U.S. believe , but there are plenty of people in Japan , Vietnam , Central America , Serbia , Iraq and Afghanistan who could provide a more complete perspective .
Large , powerful governments rarely act benevolently , and the U.S. is no exception .
What actually happened - two opposing blocs each capable of preventing the other from unilaterally dominating the world - was far from the worst possible outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The underlying assumption of your query appears to be that the U.S. has acted more benevolently during its reign as a global superpower than the Soviets or Germans would have.
Certainly that is what most people in the U.S. believe, but there are plenty of people in Japan, Vietnam, Central America, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan who could provide a more complete perspective.
Large, powerful governments rarely act benevolently, and the U.S. is no exception.
What actually happened - two opposing blocs each capable of preventing the other from unilaterally dominating the world - was far from the worst possible outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995346</id>
	<title>Gulf war mine clearing teams</title>
	<author>waterford0069</author>
	<datestamp>1257439200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else have visions of that one nation who sent mine-clearing teams to Kuwait following the first Gulf War... complete with 20 foot bamboo poles to probe the ground in front of them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else have visions of that one nation who sent mine-clearing teams to Kuwait following the first Gulf War... complete with 20 foot bamboo poles to probe the ground in front of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else have visions of that one nation who sent mine-clearing teams to Kuwait following the first Gulf War... complete with 20 foot bamboo poles to probe the ground in front of them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30001480</id>
	<title>Re:So What? We use "Lie Detectors".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257424080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>polygraphs normally outperform random chance. By how much seems to be highly variable.</i></p><p>The polygraph is only a prop.  It's the person asking the questions and watching the responses that's deciding whether truth is being told or not.  That's why it's highly variable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>polygraphs normally outperform random chance .
By how much seems to be highly variable.The polygraph is only a prop .
It 's the person asking the questions and watching the responses that 's deciding whether truth is being told or not .
That 's why it 's highly variable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>polygraphs normally outperform random chance.
By how much seems to be highly variable.The polygraph is only a prop.
It's the person asking the questions and watching the responses that's deciding whether truth is being told or not.
That's why it's highly variable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995278</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257438720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Undead Jews?! Bummer, I don't think brains are kosher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Undead Jews ? !
Bummer , I do n't think brains are kosher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Undead Jews?!
Bummer, I don't think brains are kosher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989744</id>
	<title>It's all about the $</title>
	<author>shadowblaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257001740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how much a real bomb detector cost, but it'll probably be more expensive than these bogus wands.</p><p>The people who bought this probably knew it doesn't work but they use it anyway to give whoever they are protecting a (false) sense of security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how much a real bomb detector cost , but it 'll probably be more expensive than these bogus wands.The people who bought this probably knew it does n't work but they use it anyway to give whoever they are protecting a ( false ) sense of security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how much a real bomb detector cost, but it'll probably be more expensive than these bogus wands.The people who bought this probably knew it doesn't work but they use it anyway to give whoever they are protecting a (false) sense of security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994316</id>
	<title>No they really work!</title>
	<author>Random5</author>
	<datestamp>1257433860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the rods go flying off in different directions at high speed, there are explosives nearby. Well I guess WERE explosives nearby, technically.

(yes I read the article and realise they're not using ACTUAL dowsing rods)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the rods go flying off in different directions at high speed , there are explosives nearby .
Well I guess WERE explosives nearby , technically .
( yes I read the article and realise they 're not using ACTUAL dowsing rods )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the rods go flying off in different directions at high speed, there are explosives nearby.
Well I guess WERE explosives nearby, technically.
(yes I read the article and realise they're not using ACTUAL dowsing rods)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</id>
	<title>It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>Jahava</author>
	<datestamp>1256999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the device works &ldquo;on the same principle as a Ouija board&rdquo;</p></div><p>So in effect, this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb. Even if I know it's bogus (and I'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this), it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb. I'd not be surprised if there was <em>some</em> correlation between <i>suspicious-looking-folks</i> and <i>folks-with-bombs</i>, so the power of unbounded searching is probably (somewhat) effective.
</p><p>
On the other hand, if they really do believe that these devices work, then the bombers may share those beliefs. That, also, could deter bombings.
</p><p>
Either way, it's a win for Iraq<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, if you don't care about human rights and the millions of dollars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the device works    on the same principle as a Ouija board    So in effect , this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb .
Even if I know it 's bogus ( and I 'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this ) , it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb .
I 'd not be surprised if there was some correlation between suspicious-looking-folks and folks-with-bombs , so the power of unbounded searching is probably ( somewhat ) effective .
On the other hand , if they really do believe that these devices work , then the bombers may share those beliefs .
That , also , could deter bombings .
Either way , it 's a win for Iraq ... well , if you do n't care about human rights and the millions of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the device works “on the same principle as a Ouija board”So in effect, this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb.
Even if I know it's bogus (and I'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this), it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb.
I'd not be surprised if there was some correlation between suspicious-looking-folks and folks-with-bombs, so the power of unbounded searching is probably (somewhat) effective.
On the other hand, if they really do believe that these devices work, then the bombers may share those beliefs.
That, also, could deter bombings.
Either way, it's a win for Iraq ... well, if you don't care about human rights and the millions of dollars.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990278</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>intx13</author>
	<datestamp>1257005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is incredibly easy to be skeptical and cynical, until you have seen something that rivals the best magician's trick. From a guy who spent most of every day of his life by himself.</p></div><p>So did you believe the magician's claim that he has supernatural powers, too?  If an old man with a stick and a talent for miming can fool you into thinking that dead wood can turn "into a straining, curving, living thing" and detect water, I've got a card trick to show you.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In <b>my mind</b> there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.</p> </div><p>I've located the source of the problem, highlighted above.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is incredibly easy to be skeptical and cynical , until you have seen something that rivals the best magician 's trick .
From a guy who spent most of every day of his life by himself.So did you believe the magician 's claim that he has supernatural powers , too ?
If an old man with a stick and a talent for miming can fool you into thinking that dead wood can turn " into a straining , curving , living thing " and detect water , I 've got a card trick to show you.In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it , and did it .
I 've located the source of the problem , highlighted above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is incredibly easy to be skeptical and cynical, until you have seen something that rivals the best magician's trick.
From a guy who spent most of every day of his life by himself.So did you believe the magician's claim that he has supernatural powers, too?
If an old man with a stick and a talent for miming can fool you into thinking that dead wood can turn "into a straining, curving, living thing" and detect water, I've got a card trick to show you.In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.
I've located the source of the problem, highlighted above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991312</id>
	<title>Re:Seen this before!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257014340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>buying it as a marijuana detector</i> </p><p>Best pot story I ever heard:</p><p>Back in the 60s or 70s, they sent "Officer Straight Arrow" around to middle and high schools to lecture on the dangers of pot and to demonstrate how to detect if your friends were using. He'd take a chemical tablet out of an envelope, place it on a saucer, light it and pass it around the room so the kids would know what "the real thing" whould smell like. Apparently the saucer came back to the front of the room with the still-smoldering tablet, along with a few smoldering roaches contributed by the students.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>buying it as a marijuana detector Best pot story I ever heard : Back in the 60s or 70s , they sent " Officer Straight Arrow " around to middle and high schools to lecture on the dangers of pot and to demonstrate how to detect if your friends were using .
He 'd take a chemical tablet out of an envelope , place it on a saucer , light it and pass it around the room so the kids would know what " the real thing " whould smell like .
Apparently the saucer came back to the front of the room with the still-smoldering tablet , along with a few smoldering roaches contributed by the students .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>buying it as a marijuana detector Best pot story I ever heard:Back in the 60s or 70s, they sent "Officer Straight Arrow" around to middle and high schools to lecture on the dangers of pot and to demonstrate how to detect if your friends were using.
He'd take a chemical tablet out of an envelope, place it on a saucer, light it and pass it around the room so the kids would know what "the real thing" whould smell like.
Apparently the saucer came back to the front of the room with the still-smoldering tablet, along with a few smoldering roaches contributed by the students.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991832</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Beowulf\_Boy</author>
	<datestamp>1257451740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always think its funny whenever this subject comes up on a forum like this, everyone thats not seen it done before calls everyone else an idiot.</p><p>When I was younger my dad showed me how to dowse with a coat hanger bent into an L shape. We were looking for the sewage line from the back of our house, because we'd just moved there and didn't know where the septic tanks were at. After walking around for a bit, I noticed the rod started lining up a certain way every time I walked past a certain spot. I showed my dad, he did the same thing, then we dug there and found the septic line.</p><p>I was maybe 10 years old, I had no knowlege of septic lines, the lay of the land, etc. All I was told was "hold this rod like this and walk around and you'll see it do something funny eventually." All we knew was that the line left the back of the house somewhere, and went towards a field, it could have been anywhere within about an acre of area.</p><p>I'm sure some of you don't believe it, but it works well enough I've seen DOT personel use it to find water lines under roads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always think its funny whenever this subject comes up on a forum like this , everyone thats not seen it done before calls everyone else an idiot.When I was younger my dad showed me how to dowse with a coat hanger bent into an L shape .
We were looking for the sewage line from the back of our house , because we 'd just moved there and did n't know where the septic tanks were at .
After walking around for a bit , I noticed the rod started lining up a certain way every time I walked past a certain spot .
I showed my dad , he did the same thing , then we dug there and found the septic line.I was maybe 10 years old , I had no knowlege of septic lines , the lay of the land , etc .
All I was told was " hold this rod like this and walk around and you 'll see it do something funny eventually .
" All we knew was that the line left the back of the house somewhere , and went towards a field , it could have been anywhere within about an acre of area.I 'm sure some of you do n't believe it , but it works well enough I 've seen DOT personel use it to find water lines under roads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always think its funny whenever this subject comes up on a forum like this, everyone thats not seen it done before calls everyone else an idiot.When I was younger my dad showed me how to dowse with a coat hanger bent into an L shape.
We were looking for the sewage line from the back of our house, because we'd just moved there and didn't know where the septic tanks were at.
After walking around for a bit, I noticed the rod started lining up a certain way every time I walked past a certain spot.
I showed my dad, he did the same thing, then we dug there and found the septic line.I was maybe 10 years old, I had no knowlege of septic lines, the lay of the land, etc.
All I was told was "hold this rod like this and walk around and you'll see it do something funny eventually.
" All we knew was that the line left the back of the house somewhere, and went towards a field, it could have been anywhere within about an acre of area.I'm sure some of you don't believe it, but it works well enough I've seen DOT personel use it to find water lines under roads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989214</id>
	<title>Now you know</title>
	<author>Sean</author>
	<datestamp>1256998740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where those billions and billions of dollars went.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where those billions and billions of dollars went .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where those billions and billions of dollars went.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993152</id>
	<title>Re:May have a benefit....</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1257425040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought about that, then I remembered the two trucks full of explosives that were driven through these checkpoints and used to blow up two governement buildings full of people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought about that , then I remembered the two trucks full of explosives that were driven through these checkpoints and used to blow up two governement buildings full of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought about that, then I remembered the two trucks full of explosives that were driven through these checkpoints and used to blow up two governement buildings full of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992796</id>
	<title>Is this how it works?</title>
	<author>Fross</author>
	<datestamp>1257420480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the dousing rod flies 300 feet into the air, you've found the bomb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the dousing rod flies 300 feet into the air , you 've found the bomb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the dousing rod flies 300 feet into the air, you've found the bomb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990840</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1257010080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once saw a man with a puppet made out of cloth and plastic have a complete conversation with that puppet. Completely different personalities, the man never moved his mouth, there's no way to explain how that puppet talked. Except for one: it was a trick. Just like what hookers do for money. Or cocaine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once saw a man with a puppet made out of cloth and plastic have a complete conversation with that puppet .
Completely different personalities , the man never moved his mouth , there 's no way to explain how that puppet talked .
Except for one : it was a trick .
Just like what hookers do for money .
Or cocaine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once saw a man with a puppet made out of cloth and plastic have a complete conversation with that puppet.
Completely different personalities, the man never moved his mouth, there's no way to explain how that puppet talked.
Except for one: it was a trick.
Just like what hookers do for money.
Or cocaine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991336</id>
	<title>These are in use throughout the Middle East</title>
	<author>sirflyalot</author>
	<datestamp>1257014520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you travel through the Middle East, you see these things everywhere.  Especially Lebanon.  Every parking garage and big building uses these.  When  you ask anyone about those, 9 out 10 people say they work, and the other one is merely skeptical.  If you look at one closely, it's just a plastic piece of crap with a metal rod.

"There's a sucker born every minute".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you travel through the Middle East , you see these things everywhere .
Especially Lebanon .
Every parking garage and big building uses these .
When you ask anyone about those , 9 out 10 people say they work , and the other one is merely skeptical .
If you look at one closely , it 's just a plastic piece of crap with a metal rod .
" There 's a sucker born every minute " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you travel through the Middle East, you see these things everywhere.
Especially Lebanon.
Every parking garage and big building uses these.
When  you ask anyone about those, 9 out 10 people say they work, and the other one is merely skeptical.
If you look at one closely, it's just a plastic piece of crap with a metal rod.
"There's a sucker born every minute".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989900</id>
	<title>A likely placebo effect</title>
	<author>slagell</author>
	<datestamp>1257003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is likely to be something similar to a placebo effect (in addition to confirmation bias and other psychological pitfalls) that will reinforce the idea that this works for officials there. If they believe it works, it is likely at least some bombers will, too. So it has a deterrent effect that is likely measurable. Therefore if they do some correlation studies later, they are likely to find places that do use these will have lower rates of incident (as long as you don't compare to places with actual bomb detection).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is likely to be something similar to a placebo effect ( in addition to confirmation bias and other psychological pitfalls ) that will reinforce the idea that this works for officials there .
If they believe it works , it is likely at least some bombers will , too .
So it has a deterrent effect that is likely measurable .
Therefore if they do some correlation studies later , they are likely to find places that do use these will have lower rates of incident ( as long as you do n't compare to places with actual bomb detection ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is likely to be something similar to a placebo effect (in addition to confirmation bias and other psychological pitfalls) that will reinforce the idea that this works for officials there.
If they believe it works, it is likely at least some bombers will, too.
So it has a deterrent effect that is likely measurable.
Therefore if they do some correlation studies later, they are likely to find places that do use these will have lower rates of incident (as long as you don't compare to places with actual bomb detection).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992034</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257454680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, since we started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military forces have been burning *much* more oil than we have been able to extract from Iraq.<br>This is a good part of the reason why petroleum is more than twice the price it was before.</p><p>Stop the wars and the price of oil will plummet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , since we started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , our military forces have been burning * much * more oil than we have been able to extract from Iraq.This is a good part of the reason why petroleum is more than twice the price it was before.Stop the wars and the price of oil will plummet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, since we started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military forces have been burning *much* more oil than we have been able to extract from Iraq.This is a good part of the reason why petroleum is more than twice the price it was before.Stop the wars and the price of oil will plummet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992126</id>
	<title>People like McCormick make me sick</title>
	<author>piotru</author>
	<datestamp>1257412800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody seems to have noticed the name that should be remembered.  Jim McCormick, the leader of ATSC (UK) Ltd., the London-based company that has sold hundreds of the devices to Iraq&rsquo;s Interior Ministry.<br>The money he got is stained with blood of the bomb victims, but a scum like him wouldn't even care. Why does Earth carry miscreants of his kind? He deserves to be a bomb victim himself, nothing else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody seems to have noticed the name that should be remembered .
Jim McCormick , the leader of ATSC ( UK ) Ltd. , the London-based company that has sold hundreds of the devices to Iraq    s Interior Ministry.The money he got is stained with blood of the bomb victims , but a scum like him would n't even care .
Why does Earth carry miscreants of his kind ?
He deserves to be a bomb victim himself , nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody seems to have noticed the name that should be remembered.
Jim McCormick, the leader of ATSC (UK) Ltd., the London-based company that has sold hundreds of the devices to Iraq’s Interior Ministry.The money he got is stained with blood of the bomb victims, but a scum like him wouldn't even care.
Why does Earth carry miscreants of his kind?
He deserves to be a bomb victim himself, nothing else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1257000060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.  We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.  Therefore they can't handle nukes and we can.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p><p>I'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we're seeing here.  Both are pretty shocking, but "magic bomb detector" risks at most several soldiers' lives, not, you know, everything.</p><p>In case you forgot, our leaders were the ones that relied on MAD.  With all our eductation and logic, that is what we came up with.  If this is the dumbest thing Iraq is doing coming out of Saddam's rule, with little recent history of competent leaders, they're doing pretty well.  I wouldn't want them to have nukes, but we're not people who should have nukes either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because we 're so much smarter than the Iraqis .
We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military .
Therefore they ca n't handle nukes and we can .
/sarcasmI 'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we 're seeing here .
Both are pretty shocking , but " magic bomb detector " risks at most several soldiers ' lives , not , you know , everything.In case you forgot , our leaders were the ones that relied on MAD .
With all our eductation and logic , that is what we came up with .
If this is the dumbest thing Iraq is doing coming out of Saddam 's rule , with little recent history of competent leaders , they 're doing pretty well .
I would n't want them to have nukes , but we 're not people who should have nukes either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.
We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.
Therefore they can't handle nukes and we can.
/sarcasmI'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we're seeing here.
Both are pretty shocking, but "magic bomb detector" risks at most several soldiers' lives, not, you know, everything.In case you forgot, our leaders were the ones that relied on MAD.
With all our eductation and logic, that is what we came up with.
If this is the dumbest thing Iraq is doing coming out of Saddam's rule, with little recent history of competent leaders, they're doing pretty well.
I wouldn't want them to have nukes, but we're not people who should have nukes either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992710</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>zwarte piet</author>
	<datestamp>1257419820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cars, trucks, powerplants, home heating, can all run on natural gas of wich my western country has plenty. And Shell is already making diesel fuel out of natural gas. And then there is bio diesel. And nuclear, wind, solar and salt/sweet water mixing alternatives for electricity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars , trucks , powerplants , home heating , can all run on natural gas of wich my western country has plenty .
And Shell is already making diesel fuel out of natural gas .
And then there is bio diesel .
And nuclear , wind , solar and salt/sweet water mixing alternatives for electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars, trucks, powerplants, home heating, can all run on natural gas of wich my western country has plenty.
And Shell is already making diesel fuel out of natural gas.
And then there is bio diesel.
And nuclear, wind, solar and salt/sweet water mixing alternatives for electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995710</id>
	<title>Mine works!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1257441000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The needle is stuck on "ITS A BOMB!"</p><p>Which works for me as the solution is to blow it up remotely. Just means that everything gets blown up remotely. Works for me, better safe than sorry!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The needle is stuck on " ITS A BOMB !
" Which works for me as the solution is to blow it up remotely .
Just means that everything gets blown up remotely .
Works for me , better safe than sorry !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The needle is stuck on "ITS A BOMB!
"Which works for me as the solution is to blow it up remotely.
Just means that everything gets blown up remotely.
Works for me, better safe than sorry!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989386</id>
	<title>Our nation-building rocks are also quite popular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also double as tiger repellent rocks. Since use of the rocks, nation building is way up and tiger maulings are way down. With less than 2 tiger maulings a day in the green zone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also double as tiger repellent rocks .
Since use of the rocks , nation building is way up and tiger maulings are way down .
With less than 2 tiger maulings a day in the green zone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also double as tiger repellent rocks.
Since use of the rocks, nation building is way up and tiger maulings are way down.
With less than 2 tiger maulings a day in the green zone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995532</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>henrik.falk</author>
	<datestamp>1257440100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's wildly speculate to prove a point that you just made up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's wildly speculate to prove a point that you just made up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's wildly speculate to prove a point that you just made up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</id>
	<title>Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It isn't like anyone in the US uses dousing rods to find water. Oh wait? What's that they do. Well, at least they don't construct electronic devices which they claim do things which they don't? Oh wait, what's that about all sorts of alternative medicine devices <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone</a> [wikipedia.org]? I suppose I don't even need to bother to list all the other fun beliefs, like astrology, ghosts, electronic voice phenomena. Oh and doesn't the federal government still use lie detector tests despite the scientific consensus that they don't work? Yeah, despite all that, let's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing. After all, they are primitive foreigners. There's no way good, right-thinking Americans would act that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't like anyone in the US uses dousing rods to find water .
Oh wait ?
What 's that they do .
Well , at least they do n't construct electronic devices which they claim do things which they do n't ?
Oh wait , what 's that about all sorts of alternative medicine devices http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone [ wikipedia.org ] ?
I suppose I do n't even need to bother to list all the other fun beliefs , like astrology , ghosts , electronic voice phenomena .
Oh and does n't the federal government still use lie detector tests despite the scientific consensus that they do n't work ?
Yeah , despite all that , let 's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing .
After all , they are primitive foreigners .
There 's no way good , right-thinking Americans would act that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't like anyone in the US uses dousing rods to find water.
Oh wait?
What's that they do.
Well, at least they don't construct electronic devices which they claim do things which they don't?
Oh wait, what's that about all sorts of alternative medicine devices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone [wikipedia.org]?
I suppose I don't even need to bother to list all the other fun beliefs, like astrology, ghosts, electronic voice phenomena.
Oh and doesn't the federal government still use lie detector tests despite the scientific consensus that they don't work?
Yeah, despite all that, let's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing.
After all, they are primitive foreigners.
There's no way good, right-thinking Americans would act that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989372</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they shouldn't be allowed to have the bomb.</p> </div><p>Hmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you do realise that's Iraq with a <b>Q</b>, not with an N? The country with the nuclear weapons^Wpower program is next door.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they should n't be allowed to have the bomb .
Hmm ... you do realise that 's Iraq with a Q , not with an N ?
The country with the nuclear weapons ^ Wpower program is next door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they shouldn't be allowed to have the bomb.
Hmm ... you do realise that's Iraq with a Q, not with an N?
The country with the nuclear weapons^Wpower program is next door.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993240</id>
	<title>Re:In a target-rich environment? Sure!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257426000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at least quote it correctly.</p><p>"Even a stopped clock, tells the right time, twice a day"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>at least quote it correctly .
" Even a stopped clock , tells the right time , twice a day "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at least quote it correctly.
"Even a stopped clock, tells the right time, twice a day"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29999518</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Deosyne</author>
	<datestamp>1257414720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, sounds pretty hare-brained. But what if it had worked? What if they spent a couple million dollars on research to discover that a minute percentage of the population had the ability to remotely spy, or to kill with their minds? Never in the history of military spending would there ever have been a return on investment so good. Sometimes a idea just has way too much potential to simply dismiss it without at least giving it a reasonable once-over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , sounds pretty hare-brained .
But what if it had worked ?
What if they spent a couple million dollars on research to discover that a minute percentage of the population had the ability to remotely spy , or to kill with their minds ?
Never in the history of military spending would there ever have been a return on investment so good .
Sometimes a idea just has way too much potential to simply dismiss it without at least giving it a reasonable once-over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, sounds pretty hare-brained.
But what if it had worked?
What if they spent a couple million dollars on research to discover that a minute percentage of the population had the ability to remotely spy, or to kill with their minds?
Never in the history of military spending would there ever have been a return on investment so good.
Sometimes a idea just has way too much potential to simply dismiss it without at least giving it a reasonable once-over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990182</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While dowsing rods are complete BS, there is some truth to people being able to use them.</p><p>Some truth<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Typically its the fact these are very observent people who are capable of reading the signs of the environment.  Contours of the terrain are a good indicator.</p><p>I certainly couldn't do it, but many 'dowsers' are actually useful, not because of the rod, but because they just happen to be good detectives who understand their environment.  The rod just happens to help keep their secret safe from others who might realize what they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While dowsing rods are complete BS , there is some truth to people being able to use them.Some truth ...Typically its the fact these are very observent people who are capable of reading the signs of the environment .
Contours of the terrain are a good indicator.I certainly could n't do it , but many 'dowsers ' are actually useful , not because of the rod , but because they just happen to be good detectives who understand their environment .
The rod just happens to help keep their secret safe from others who might realize what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While dowsing rods are complete BS, there is some truth to people being able to use them.Some truth ...Typically its the fact these are very observent people who are capable of reading the signs of the environment.
Contours of the terrain are a good indicator.I certainly couldn't do it, but many 'dowsers' are actually useful, not because of the rod, but because they just happen to be good detectives who understand their environment.
The rod just happens to help keep their secret safe from others who might realize what they are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992998</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257423060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Y shaped branch is your answer, certain branches, when pulled or flexed in the two smaller ends, result in the longer end bending.  I used to play around with those when I was a kid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Y shaped branch is your answer , certain branches , when pulled or flexed in the two smaller ends , result in the longer end bending .
I used to play around with those when I was a kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Y shaped branch is your answer, certain branches, when pulled or flexed in the two smaller ends, result in the longer end bending.
I used to play around with those when I was a kid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990702</id>
	<title>Elaborate ploy</title>
	<author>chilvence</author>
	<datestamp>1257008880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe anyone could be sick enough to come up with this. As if scammers arent bad enough on their own, now we have homicidal scammers. I hope these sick bastards enjoy their blood money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe anyone could be sick enough to come up with this .
As if scammers arent bad enough on their own , now we have homicidal scammers .
I hope these sick bastards enjoy their blood money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe anyone could be sick enough to come up with this.
As if scammers arent bad enough on their own, now we have homicidal scammers.
I hope these sick bastards enjoy their blood money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990642</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>mrcaseyj</author>
	<datestamp>1257008400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And for $300, he would tell you exactly where you should dig, precisely how far you should dig, how much water you were going to get (GPM), how long it would last, whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells. He could also eliminate sources with salt, sulfur, iron, calcium and anything else you don't want in your water.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing, with a quadruple your money back if anything was less than what he promised. Goes dry? Not enough flow? Muddy, salty, iron, sulfur? He'll pay you $1200.</p><p>When I heard the story from my co-worker, the old fellow hadn't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he'd been doing it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe your co-worker wanted to find out if you were gullible enough to entertain the possibility that it was true. Or maybe he was getting kickbacks for promoting the guy to you. How did you or your co-worker verify that the guy hadn't needed to give any refunds? Crooks who make false claims like that are very common.</p><p>Many many people believe strongly in dowsing, but none of them have ever been able to demonstrate any dowsing ability in blind tests. I can't imagine any reasonable conspiracy that could cover up the evidence for such a common and easily tested phenomenon. The only dowser I ever met wanted to prove to me that he could do it. But the method he suggested wouldn't prove anything. Even when I explained why, he still couldn't understand why it wouldn't prove anything. Dowsers think they have good reason to believe in their skills, but they don't even know the difference between good evidence and worthless evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for $ 300 , he would tell you exactly where you should dig , precisely how far you should dig , how much water you were going to get ( GPM ) , how long it would last , whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells .
He could also eliminate sources with salt , sulfur , iron , calcium and anything else you do n't want in your water .
...The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing , with a quadruple your money back if anything was less than what he promised .
Goes dry ?
Not enough flow ?
Muddy , salty , iron , sulfur ?
He 'll pay you $ 1200.When I heard the story from my co-worker , the old fellow had n't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he 'd been doing it.Maybe your co-worker wanted to find out if you were gullible enough to entertain the possibility that it was true .
Or maybe he was getting kickbacks for promoting the guy to you .
How did you or your co-worker verify that the guy had n't needed to give any refunds ?
Crooks who make false claims like that are very common.Many many people believe strongly in dowsing , but none of them have ever been able to demonstrate any dowsing ability in blind tests .
I ca n't imagine any reasonable conspiracy that could cover up the evidence for such a common and easily tested phenomenon .
The only dowser I ever met wanted to prove to me that he could do it .
But the method he suggested would n't prove anything .
Even when I explained why , he still could n't understand why it would n't prove anything .
Dowsers think they have good reason to believe in their skills , but they do n't even know the difference between good evidence and worthless evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for $300, he would tell you exactly where you should dig, precisely how far you should dig, how much water you were going to get (GPM), how long it would last, whether it was subject to drought or could be relied upon during dry spells.
He could also eliminate sources with salt, sulfur, iron, calcium and anything else you don't want in your water.
...The Dowser gave his guarantee in writing, with a quadruple your money back if anything was less than what he promised.
Goes dry?
Not enough flow?
Muddy, salty, iron, sulfur?
He'll pay you $1200.When I heard the story from my co-worker, the old fellow hadn't needed to pay anyone back in the 20 years he'd been doing it.Maybe your co-worker wanted to find out if you were gullible enough to entertain the possibility that it was true.
Or maybe he was getting kickbacks for promoting the guy to you.
How did you or your co-worker verify that the guy hadn't needed to give any refunds?
Crooks who make false claims like that are very common.Many many people believe strongly in dowsing, but none of them have ever been able to demonstrate any dowsing ability in blind tests.
I can't imagine any reasonable conspiracy that could cover up the evidence for such a common and easily tested phenomenon.
The only dowser I ever met wanted to prove to me that he could do it.
But the method he suggested wouldn't prove anything.
Even when I explained why, he still couldn't understand why it wouldn't prove anything.
Dowsers think they have good reason to believe in their skills, but they don't even know the difference between good evidence and worthless evidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998968</id>
	<title>What else could they do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what else one could expect from a bunch of tribal wackos?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what else one could expect from a bunch of tribal wackos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what else one could expect from a bunch of tribal wackos?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992240</id>
	<title>Nothing to do with superstition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257414120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.  We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.</p></div><p>The company selling these rods has paid some big money to high up officials for this deal. It should be extremely obvious.</p><p>They are paying millions of dollars for something that has no proven effect and is much cheaper to manufacture and was abandoned by the USA army. No, superstition won't do the trick.</p><p>I believe that the company first tried to sell these to USA army. Didn't work. Nobody was foolish enough to sign the papers and those people corrupt enough were able to get their 'donations' from other sources with more believable product. So, the company decided to sell these to Iraqs, handed out a bit money to a few officials and... profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because we 're so much smarter than the Iraqis .
We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.The company selling these rods has paid some big money to high up officials for this deal .
It should be extremely obvious.They are paying millions of dollars for something that has no proven effect and is much cheaper to manufacture and was abandoned by the USA army .
No , superstition wo n't do the trick.I believe that the company first tried to sell these to USA army .
Did n't work .
Nobody was foolish enough to sign the papers and those people corrupt enough were able to get their 'donations ' from other sources with more believable product .
So , the company decided to sell these to Iraqs , handed out a bit money to a few officials and... profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis.
We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military.The company selling these rods has paid some big money to high up officials for this deal.
It should be extremely obvious.They are paying millions of dollars for something that has no proven effect and is much cheaper to manufacture and was abandoned by the USA army.
No, superstition won't do the trick.I believe that the company first tried to sell these to USA army.
Didn't work.
Nobody was foolish enough to sign the papers and those people corrupt enough were able to get their 'donations' from other sources with more believable product.
So, the company decided to sell these to Iraqs, handed out a bit money to a few officials and... profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990896</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Confirmation of the success of MAD could only come from the testimony of people who could and would confirm that they did not launch nuclear attacks against (US/USSR) due to fear of massive reprisal.</p><p>Either way, MAD is an idea, and it's one that works, at least in theory.  If it worked in practice, it saved a large percentage of the world population from annihilation.</p><p>It's f'ing retarded to liken it, in any way, to bomb diving rods in Iraq.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Confirmation of the success of MAD could only come from the testimony of people who could and would confirm that they did not launch nuclear attacks against ( US/USSR ) due to fear of massive reprisal.Either way , MAD is an idea , and it 's one that works , at least in theory .
If it worked in practice , it saved a large percentage of the world population from annihilation.It 's f'ing retarded to liken it , in any way , to bomb diving rods in Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Confirmation of the success of MAD could only come from the testimony of people who could and would confirm that they did not launch nuclear attacks against (US/USSR) due to fear of massive reprisal.Either way, MAD is an idea, and it's one that works, at least in theory.
If it worked in practice, it saved a large percentage of the world population from annihilation.It's f'ing retarded to liken it, in any way, to bomb diving rods in Iraq.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990736</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it were used in the UK, I would argue it was introduced so that police or border officials had an excuse for acting on their prejudices rather than on information. Normally they're not allowed to do this for fear of discimination against black/asian people etc... And rightly so. But if they were allowed to say 'an expensive dowsing rod told me to stop and search this black man' then it might conceivably count as 'intelligence' rather than prejudice.</p><p>I suspect that in Iraq, concerns about racial/ethnic discrimination aren't so much to the fore, but I thought it's an interesting point to bring up nonetheless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were used in the UK , I would argue it was introduced so that police or border officials had an excuse for acting on their prejudices rather than on information .
Normally they 're not allowed to do this for fear of discimination against black/asian people etc... And rightly so .
But if they were allowed to say 'an expensive dowsing rod told me to stop and search this black man ' then it might conceivably count as 'intelligence ' rather than prejudice.I suspect that in Iraq , concerns about racial/ethnic discrimination are n't so much to the fore , but I thought it 's an interesting point to bring up nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it were used in the UK, I would argue it was introduced so that police or border officials had an excuse for acting on their prejudices rather than on information.
Normally they're not allowed to do this for fear of discimination against black/asian people etc... And rightly so.
But if they were allowed to say 'an expensive dowsing rod told me to stop and search this black man' then it might conceivably count as 'intelligence' rather than prejudice.I suspect that in Iraq, concerns about racial/ethnic discrimination aren't so much to the fore, but I thought it's an interesting point to bring up nonetheless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990812</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah its not like the guy knew the land very well or anything. The instructions were probably the same for every client, tapping into the water table of a known area.</p><p>I heard that this guy on slashdot, knows this guy who knows this other guy....</p><p>Whatever</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah its not like the guy knew the land very well or anything .
The instructions were probably the same for every client , tapping into the water table of a known area.I heard that this guy on slashdot , knows this guy who knows this other guy....Whatever</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah its not like the guy knew the land very well or anything.
The instructions were probably the same for every client, tapping into the water table of a known area.I heard that this guy on slashdot, knows this guy who knows this other guy....Whatever</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992538</id>
	<title>Re:What this shows</title>
	<author>vittal</author>
	<datestamp>1257417780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These things should be going off all the time - according to their website, they'll detect amongst other things "...,Cannabis, Morphine, Ivory, Human research, Bank notes,..." (<a href="http://www.ade651.com/sustanciasin.html" title="ade651.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ade651.com/sustanciasin.html</a> [ade651.com]).</p><p>While I'm no expert in Iraq, I would have thought bank notes would be fairly common. As for the ability to detect "Human research", the mind boggles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These things should be going off all the time - according to their website , they 'll detect amongst other things " ...,Cannabis , Morphine , Ivory , Human research , Bank notes,... " ( http : //www.ade651.com/sustanciasin.html [ ade651.com ] ) .While I 'm no expert in Iraq , I would have thought bank notes would be fairly common .
As for the ability to detect " Human research " , the mind boggles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things should be going off all the time - according to their website, they'll detect amongst other things "...,Cannabis, Morphine, Ivory, Human research, Bank notes,..." (http://www.ade651.com/sustanciasin.html [ade651.com]).While I'm no expert in Iraq, I would have thought bank notes would be fairly common.
As for the ability to detect "Human research", the mind boggles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990892</id>
	<title>Is that a grenade in your pocket, or are you...</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257010560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My rod can detect sexy bombshells too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My rod can detect sexy bombshells too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My rod can detect sexy bombshells too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992330</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257415260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to work for detecting electrical cables in the ground. I have witnessed several times how me collegue has managed to locate electrical cables where there has been to much interference to use a cable-seeker. Cable-seekers on the other hand, seems to work more like superstition and when they indicate a cable they are more often wrong then right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to work for detecting electrical cables in the ground .
I have witnessed several times how me collegue has managed to locate electrical cables where there has been to much interference to use a cable-seeker .
Cable-seekers on the other hand , seems to work more like superstition and when they indicate a cable they are more often wrong then right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to work for detecting electrical cables in the ground.
I have witnessed several times how me collegue has managed to locate electrical cables where there has been to much interference to use a cable-seeker.
Cable-seekers on the other hand, seems to work more like superstition and when they indicate a cable they are more often wrong then right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992858</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257421380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can the parent post have been modded insightful? It's completely moronic. The people that are concerned about blood for oil are not against purchasing oil, they are against unfair trade, hegemony, and starting wars in order to get oil. The idea of obtaining oil from oil producing countries in a fair manner by trade amongst mutually respected trading partners is neither hypocritical nor unrealistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can the parent post have been modded insightful ?
It 's completely moronic .
The people that are concerned about blood for oil are not against purchasing oil , they are against unfair trade , hegemony , and starting wars in order to get oil .
The idea of obtaining oil from oil producing countries in a fair manner by trade amongst mutually respected trading partners is neither hypocritical nor unrealistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can the parent post have been modded insightful?
It's completely moronic.
The people that are concerned about blood for oil are not against purchasing oil, they are against unfair trade, hegemony, and starting wars in order to get oil.
The idea of obtaining oil from oil producing countries in a fair manner by trade amongst mutually respected trading partners is neither hypocritical nor unrealistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990836</id>
	<title>Just to put it in perspective</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1257010020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This company from the UK is defrauding consumers.</p><p>And in doing so is potentially responsible for hundreds of deaths.</p><p>And people wonder why skeptics have to take things so seriously...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This company from the UK is defrauding consumers.And in doing so is potentially responsible for hundreds of deaths.And people wonder why skeptics have to take things so seriously.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This company from the UK is defrauding consumers.And in doing so is potentially responsible for hundreds of deaths.And people wonder why skeptics have to take things so seriously...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991690</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>bjourne</author>
	<datestamp>1257018060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's absurd reasoning. Oil can't be replaced with coal, it doesn't have nearly the same energy density and can not (efficiently) be used for transportation like oil. Without oil, a society dependant on oil will collapse. Frankly, I'd rather see that happen sooner than later. I'm under 30 which means that the oil will likely run out during my lifetime. The Americans wars for oil can't stop that fact. So I don't see what is hypocritical about pointing out that Bash and his junta are war criminals and 50 years ago men like them were hanged in tribunals?</p><p>Do you somehow believe that I, personally, have benefited from the Iraq war?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's absurd reasoning .
Oil ca n't be replaced with coal , it does n't have nearly the same energy density and can not ( efficiently ) be used for transportation like oil .
Without oil , a society dependant on oil will collapse .
Frankly , I 'd rather see that happen sooner than later .
I 'm under 30 which means that the oil will likely run out during my lifetime .
The Americans wars for oil ca n't stop that fact .
So I do n't see what is hypocritical about pointing out that Bash and his junta are war criminals and 50 years ago men like them were hanged in tribunals ? Do you somehow believe that I , personally , have benefited from the Iraq war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's absurd reasoning.
Oil can't be replaced with coal, it doesn't have nearly the same energy density and can not (efficiently) be used for transportation like oil.
Without oil, a society dependant on oil will collapse.
Frankly, I'd rather see that happen sooner than later.
I'm under 30 which means that the oil will likely run out during my lifetime.
The Americans wars for oil can't stop that fact.
So I don't see what is hypocritical about pointing out that Bash and his junta are war criminals and 50 years ago men like them were hanged in tribunals?Do you somehow believe that I, personally, have benefited from the Iraq war?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990686</id>
	<title>Instructions</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Point the rod at the nearest bystander.<br>2) Shoot and kill the bystander with a rifle.<br>3) Search the body of the dead bystander. If said body is wrapped in explosives - Congratulations! Your bomb detector rod has worked successfully. Otherwise if the body lacked explosives, this means your bomb detector rod is not properly calibrated. Return to step 1 and repeat instructions until your rod is calibrated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Point the rod at the nearest bystander.2 ) Shoot and kill the bystander with a rifle.3 ) Search the body of the dead bystander .
If said body is wrapped in explosives - Congratulations !
Your bomb detector rod has worked successfully .
Otherwise if the body lacked explosives , this means your bomb detector rod is not properly calibrated .
Return to step 1 and repeat instructions until your rod is calibrated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Point the rod at the nearest bystander.2) Shoot and kill the bystander with a rifle.3) Search the body of the dead bystander.
If said body is wrapped in explosives - Congratulations!
Your bomb detector rod has worked successfully.
Otherwise if the body lacked explosives, this means your bomb detector rod is not properly calibrated.
Return to step 1 and repeat instructions until your rod is calibrated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991972</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>MrPloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1257453660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't make unprovoked invasions into foreign countries moral though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't make unprovoked invasions into foreign countries moral though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't make unprovoked invasions into foreign countries moral though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989512</id>
	<title>Magic!  Shiny!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257000240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> " 'Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives." </i></p><p>Did GWB <b>personally</b> appoint these people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'Whether it 's magic or scientific , what I care about is it detects bombs, ' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri , head of the Ministry of the Interior 's General Directorate for Combating Explosives .
" Did GWB personally appoint these people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> " 'Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives.
" Did GWB personally appoint these people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992140</id>
	<title>maybe not so stupid at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man is very good in detecting suspicious behaviour.  So one only needs to make them confident to use this capability.  It's like placebo.</p><p>cb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man is very good in detecting suspicious behaviour .
So one only needs to make them confident to use this capability .
It 's like placebo.cb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man is very good in detecting suspicious behaviour.
So one only needs to make them confident to use this capability.
It's like placebo.cb</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989674</id>
	<title>That's even more moronic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not for using known-bogus props as an excuse to conduct searches, which would be clever, but for deliberately <i>paying $60,000</i> for each of them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not for using known-bogus props as an excuse to conduct searches , which would be clever , but for deliberately paying $ 60,000 for each of them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not for using known-bogus props as an excuse to conduct searches, which would be clever, but for deliberately paying $60,000 for each of them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994038</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257432300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was talking to the guy who ran security on an airbase a few years ago, before all of the terrorist hysteria.  They (relatively) often did have people trying to smuggle weapons on to their flights and had a nice collection of things they'd confiscated.  I pointed out flaws in all of the technical measures that they were employing and he admitted that they didn't actually rely on them at all.  The highest detection rates came from the soldiers on guard who thought people looked suspicious.  They'd spend years training the neural nets in their heads to correlate all sorts of subtle behaviour clues distinguishing people who were threats from ones who weren't.  Dowsing for bombs works on exactly the same principle; use the large numbers of subconscious clues picked up by experienced people rather than focussing on detecting a single potential threat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was talking to the guy who ran security on an airbase a few years ago , before all of the terrorist hysteria .
They ( relatively ) often did have people trying to smuggle weapons on to their flights and had a nice collection of things they 'd confiscated .
I pointed out flaws in all of the technical measures that they were employing and he admitted that they did n't actually rely on them at all .
The highest detection rates came from the soldiers on guard who thought people looked suspicious .
They 'd spend years training the neural nets in their heads to correlate all sorts of subtle behaviour clues distinguishing people who were threats from ones who were n't .
Dowsing for bombs works on exactly the same principle ; use the large numbers of subconscious clues picked up by experienced people rather than focussing on detecting a single potential threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was talking to the guy who ran security on an airbase a few years ago, before all of the terrorist hysteria.
They (relatively) often did have people trying to smuggle weapons on to their flights and had a nice collection of things they'd confiscated.
I pointed out flaws in all of the technical measures that they were employing and he admitted that they didn't actually rely on them at all.
The highest detection rates came from the soldiers on guard who thought people looked suspicious.
They'd spend years training the neural nets in their heads to correlate all sorts of subtle behaviour clues distinguishing people who were threats from ones who weren't.
Dowsing for bombs works on exactly the same principle; use the large numbers of subconscious clues picked up by experienced people rather than focussing on detecting a single potential threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993282</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Mjlner</author>
	<datestamp>1257426540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil in the fuel tank of your car or providing power to your public transport or the plastic for nearly every type of luxury possible and fertiliser for your food that makes tomatoes and potatoes worth less than $1000 a tonne.  Especially hypocritical is the western metro, urban left who have the more than anyone else on the entire planet to lose if the oil stops...</p></div><p>It is only hypocritical if we actually had a choice. The fact that we have been lucky enough to be born into the receiving end of the oil-based economy does not mean that we have to shut up about it. On the contrary, it is very hypocritical to defend Blood for Oil just because you're the one enjoying the benefits. "Oh yes, murder for money is totally OK, because I'm paid off by the assassin!" I find your morals objectionable!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil in the fuel tank of your car or providing power to your public transport or the plastic for nearly every type of luxury possible and fertiliser for your food that makes tomatoes and potatoes worth less than $ 1000 a tonne .
Especially hypocritical is the western metro , urban left who have the more than anyone else on the entire planet to lose if the oil stops...It is only hypocritical if we actually had a choice .
The fact that we have been lucky enough to be born into the receiving end of the oil-based economy does not mean that we have to shut up about it .
On the contrary , it is very hypocritical to defend Blood for Oil just because you 're the one enjoying the benefits .
" Oh yes , murder for money is totally OK , because I 'm paid off by the assassin !
" I find your morals objectionable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil in the fuel tank of your car or providing power to your public transport or the plastic for nearly every type of luxury possible and fertiliser for your food that makes tomatoes and potatoes worth less than $1000 a tonne.
Especially hypocritical is the western metro, urban left who have the more than anyone else on the entire planet to lose if the oil stops...It is only hypocritical if we actually had a choice.
The fact that we have been lucky enough to be born into the receiving end of the oil-based economy does not mean that we have to shut up about it.
On the contrary, it is very hypocritical to defend Blood for Oil just because you're the one enjoying the benefits.
"Oh yes, murder for money is totally OK, because I'm paid off by the assassin!
" I find your morals objectionable!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989330</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?</p></div><p>I agree insofar as "these people" refers specifically to "heads of Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives" who are wasting a lot of money, refusing to admit they bought snake oil, and then handing them out to Iraq's own good men (and probably not many women) who are putting their lives on the line.</p><p>Because those people are assholes and any country deserves better than that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should our good men and ( and a few women ) have to die to 'help ' these people ? I agree insofar as " these people " refers specifically to " heads of Ministry of the Interior 's General Directorate for Combating Explosives " who are wasting a lot of money , refusing to admit they bought snake oil , and then handing them out to Iraq 's own good men ( and probably not many women ) who are putting their lives on the line.Because those people are assholes and any country deserves better than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?I agree insofar as "these people" refers specifically to "heads of Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives" who are wasting a lot of money, refusing to admit they bought snake oil, and then handing them out to Iraq's own good men (and probably not many women) who are putting their lives on the line.Because those people are assholes and any country deserves better than that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989906</id>
	<title>Show Me Statistics</title>
	<author>SilverHatHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1257003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  'Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives.</p></div><p>I'd be interested to see some numbers on this. It's all fun and games until the other guy turns out to be right, you know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Whether it 's magic or scientific , what I care about is it detects bombs, ' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri , head of the Ministry of the Interior 's General Directorate for Combating Explosives.I 'd be interested to see some numbers on this .
It 's all fun and games until the other guy turns out to be right , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  'Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives.I'd be interested to see some numbers on this.
It's all fun and games until the other guy turns out to be right, you know.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989354</id>
	<title>Bugs Bunny</title>
	<author>Dan East</author>
	<datestamp>1256999340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone see the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqMXCWbLi-U" title="youtube.com">Bugs Bunny cartoon</a> [youtube.com] (@6:40) where he was working on an assembly line during WW2?  He had a little hammer that he would tap bombs with to see if they were good or not. Of course one after another was a dud, until finally...</p><p>I guess if your divining rod detects a suicide bomber... then what? They detonate? I guess it is 100\% effective in that case. Bomb detected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone see the Bugs Bunny cartoon [ youtube.com ] ( @ 6 : 40 ) where he was working on an assembly line during WW2 ?
He had a little hammer that he would tap bombs with to see if they were good or not .
Of course one after another was a dud , until finally...I guess if your divining rod detects a suicide bomber... then what ?
They detonate ?
I guess it is 100 \ % effective in that case .
Bomb detected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone see the Bugs Bunny cartoon [youtube.com] (@6:40) where he was working on an assembly line during WW2?
He had a little hammer that he would tap bombs with to see if they were good or not.
Of course one after another was a dud, until finally...I guess if your divining rod detects a suicide bomber... then what?
They detonate?
I guess it is 100\% effective in that case.
Bomb detected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990342</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1257006180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining, curving, living thing as it dived toward the ground. In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The family next door has lived there for 3 generations, as part what is probably a small, rural community. Odds are very high that someone in those 3 generations scoped out the neighboring properties to figure out what they were worth, and somehow had prior knowledge of that stream. People talk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining , curving , living thing as it dived toward the ground .
In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it , and did it .
The family next door has lived there for 3 generations , as part what is probably a small , rural community .
Odds are very high that someone in those 3 generations scoped out the neighboring properties to figure out what they were worth , and somehow had prior knowledge of that stream .
People talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what I remember was how that inanimate branch turned into a straining, curving, living thing as it dived toward the ground.
In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.
The family next door has lived there for 3 generations, as part what is probably a small, rural community.
Odds are very high that someone in those 3 generations scoped out the neighboring properties to figure out what they were worth, and somehow had prior knowledge of that stream.
People talk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993222</id>
	<title>The  Iraquis are thrilled with the devices</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1257425940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course.  Someone with a little power finds someone who supports the opposing political party, voila, they can  "find" a bomb.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
Someone with a little power finds someone who supports the opposing political party , voila , they can " find " a bomb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
Someone with a little power finds someone who supports the opposing political party, voila, they can  "find" a bomb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992026</id>
	<title>it *IS* litterally a magician trick and not more</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1257454620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether dowser are fooling themselves or not into thinking bthis works, this is the ideomotor effect which make the Y shaped branch move <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">wiki on ideomotor effect</a> [wikipedia.org] when properly tested dowsing DO NOT WORK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether dowser are fooling themselves or not into thinking bthis works , this is the ideomotor effect which make the Y shaped branch move wiki on ideomotor effect [ wikipedia.org ] when properly tested dowsing DO NOT WORK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether dowser are fooling themselves or not into thinking bthis works, this is the ideomotor effect which make the Y shaped branch move wiki on ideomotor effect [wikipedia.org] when properly tested dowsing DO NOT WORK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989812</id>
	<title>Re:Works very simply</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1257002460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the device does work very simply, and is almost 100\% accurate.<br>1) poke object with rod<br>2) does object blow up?<br>3) if yes, it was a bomb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the device does work very simply , and is almost 100 \ % accurate.1 ) poke object with rod2 ) does object blow up ? 3 ) if yes , it was a bomb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the device does work very simply, and is almost 100\% accurate.1) poke object with rod2) does object blow up?3) if yes, it was a bomb</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991576</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, no. Most of Canada's oil comes from Canada. On the east coast it's sometimes cheaper to ship oil from western Europe, but that's about it.</p><p>Without the barrels from the Middle East, Canada would get richer if anything. Or invaded<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , no .
Most of Canada 's oil comes from Canada .
On the east coast it 's sometimes cheaper to ship oil from western Europe , but that 's about it.Without the barrels from the Middle East , Canada would get richer if anything .
Or invaded : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, no.
Most of Canada's oil comes from Canada.
On the east coast it's sometimes cheaper to ship oil from western Europe, but that's about it.Without the barrels from the Middle East, Canada would get richer if anything.
Or invaded :/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992360</id>
	<title>Crapware At It's Finest.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1257415620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>".....more than fifteen hundred remote sensing devices have been sold to Iraq's Ministry of the Interior, at prices ranging from $16,500 to $60,000 each."</p><p>-Guess who's money they used. No, really, go on and guess!</p><p>"The devices are used for bomb and weapon detection at checkpoints"</p><p>-The only time these things detect bombs is after the bomb detonates, the force of which moves the 'antenna' when the device is suddenly sent flying through the air, along with the unfortunate officers manning the now former checkpoint.</p><p>"...they work on the same principle as a Ouija board"</p><p>-It's called the Bullshit Effect, which is part of the 'Bullshit Paradox', i.e. "You can't bullshit a Bullshitter". Like real bullshit, it keeps accumulating until someone shoots the offending bull, or in this case, the officer that keeps touting the effectiveness of the devices. As long as those officers are still alive, this kind of bullshit will only keep accumulating.</p><p>"Even though the device has been debunked by the US Military, the US Department of Justice, and even Sandia National Laboratories, the Iraqis are thrilled with the devices."</p><p>-You expect anything less from people who think they will get 72 virgins in heaven if they kill an infidel?</p><p>"Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives."</p><p>-I think Baghdad Bob changed his name, because this sounds exactly like something he'd say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" .....more than fifteen hundred remote sensing devices have been sold to Iraq 's Ministry of the Interior , at prices ranging from $ 16,500 to $ 60,000 each .
" -Guess who 's money they used .
No , really , go on and guess !
" The devices are used for bomb and weapon detection at checkpoints " -The only time these things detect bombs is after the bomb detonates , the force of which moves the 'antenna ' when the device is suddenly sent flying through the air , along with the unfortunate officers manning the now former checkpoint .
" ...they work on the same principle as a Ouija board " -It 's called the Bullshit Effect , which is part of the 'Bullshit Paradox ' , i.e .
" You ca n't bullshit a Bullshitter " .
Like real bullshit , it keeps accumulating until someone shoots the offending bull , or in this case , the officer that keeps touting the effectiveness of the devices .
As long as those officers are still alive , this kind of bullshit will only keep accumulating .
" Even though the device has been debunked by the US Military , the US Department of Justice , and even Sandia National Laboratories , the Iraqis are thrilled with the devices .
" -You expect anything less from people who think they will get 72 virgins in heaven if they kill an infidel ?
" Whether it 's magic or scientific , what I care about is it detects bombs, ' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri , head of the Ministry of the Interior 's General Directorate for Combating Explosives .
" -I think Baghdad Bob changed his name , because this sounds exactly like something he 'd say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>".....more than fifteen hundred remote sensing devices have been sold to Iraq's Ministry of the Interior, at prices ranging from $16,500 to $60,000 each.
"-Guess who's money they used.
No, really, go on and guess!
"The devices are used for bomb and weapon detection at checkpoints"-The only time these things detect bombs is after the bomb detonates, the force of which moves the 'antenna' when the device is suddenly sent flying through the air, along with the unfortunate officers manning the now former checkpoint.
"...they work on the same principle as a Ouija board"-It's called the Bullshit Effect, which is part of the 'Bullshit Paradox', i.e.
"You can't bullshit a Bullshitter".
Like real bullshit, it keeps accumulating until someone shoots the offending bull, or in this case, the officer that keeps touting the effectiveness of the devices.
As long as those officers are still alive, this kind of bullshit will only keep accumulating.
"Even though the device has been debunked by the US Military, the US Department of Justice, and even Sandia National Laboratories, the Iraqis are thrilled with the devices.
"-You expect anything less from people who think they will get 72 virgins in heaven if they kill an infidel?
"Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives.
"-I think Baghdad Bob changed his name, because this sounds exactly like something he'd say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1257004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are an American, Englishman, Frenchman, German, Australian, Canadian or other western individual your country, civilisation and way of life depends 110\% on keeping those barrels of oil flowing into your trucks, tractors, machinery and cars.</p><p>Without those barrels of oil your lifestyle will go back to 1900's style in many ways and quite a few of you will die.  Coal of course can pick up the slack in many areas of energy production but then be prepared for the pollution and death that it brings...1900 style fogs of coal particles.  Food production will decrease and the labour needed to produce it will go up by tenfold so without being alarmist millions of people in the less fortunate parts of the world will die without the wealth of cheap western food that much of that oil grows that keeps them fed.</p><p>As for the environment and CO2 emmissions without oil, what we're putting out now will be like a trickle compared to using coal.</p><p>It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil in the fuel tank of your car or providing power to your public transport or the plastic for nearly every type of luxury possible and fertiliser for your food that makes tomatoes and potatoes worth less than $1000 a tonne.  Especially hypocritical is the western metro, urban left who have the more than anyone else on the entire planet to lose if the oil stops...</p><p>I guess it's easier to project the guilt onto the big bad rich white men.  Kinda like how many junkies blame their dealers for the state of their own lives...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are an American , Englishman , Frenchman , German , Australian , Canadian or other western individual your country , civilisation and way of life depends 110 \ % on keeping those barrels of oil flowing into your trucks , tractors , machinery and cars.Without those barrels of oil your lifestyle will go back to 1900 's style in many ways and quite a few of you will die .
Coal of course can pick up the slack in many areas of energy production but then be prepared for the pollution and death that it brings...1900 style fogs of coal particles .
Food production will decrease and the labour needed to produce it will go up by tenfold so without being alarmist millions of people in the less fortunate parts of the world will die without the wealth of cheap western food that much of that oil grows that keeps them fed.As for the environment and CO2 emmissions without oil , what we 're putting out now will be like a trickle compared to using coal.It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil in the fuel tank of your car or providing power to your public transport or the plastic for nearly every type of luxury possible and fertiliser for your food that makes tomatoes and potatoes worth less than $ 1000 a tonne .
Especially hypocritical is the western metro , urban left who have the more than anyone else on the entire planet to lose if the oil stops...I guess it 's easier to project the guilt onto the big bad rich white men .
Kinda like how many junkies blame their dealers for the state of their own lives.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are an American, Englishman, Frenchman, German, Australian, Canadian or other western individual your country, civilisation and way of life depends 110\% on keeping those barrels of oil flowing into your trucks, tractors, machinery and cars.Without those barrels of oil your lifestyle will go back to 1900's style in many ways and quite a few of you will die.
Coal of course can pick up the slack in many areas of energy production but then be prepared for the pollution and death that it brings...1900 style fogs of coal particles.
Food production will decrease and the labour needed to produce it will go up by tenfold so without being alarmist millions of people in the less fortunate parts of the world will die without the wealth of cheap western food that much of that oil grows that keeps them fed.As for the environment and CO2 emmissions without oil, what we're putting out now will be like a trickle compared to using coal.It seems rather hypocritical to me to rail against Blood for Oil while living extremely comfortably in an advanced western society directly reaping the benefits of having that oil in the fuel tank of your car or providing power to your public transport or the plastic for nearly every type of luxury possible and fertiliser for your food that makes tomatoes and potatoes worth less than $1000 a tonne.
Especially hypocritical is the western metro, urban left who have the more than anyone else on the entire planet to lose if the oil stops...I guess it's easier to project the guilt onto the big bad rich white men.
Kinda like how many junkies blame their dealers for the state of their own lives...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991028</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Either way, it's a win for Iraq<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, if you don't care about human rights and the millions of dollars.</i> </p><p>Like our TSA, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either way , it 's a win for Iraq ... well , if you do n't care about human rights and the millions of dollars .
Like our TSA , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either way, it's a win for Iraq ... well, if you don't care about human rights and the millions of dollars.
Like our TSA, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989836</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257002640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yeah, despite all that, let's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing. After all, they are primitive foreigners. There's no way good, right-thinking Americans would act that way.</i></p><p>Oh hey look, it's a <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/02/26/1930203/Skepticism-Censorship-And-The-Polygraph" title="slashdot.org">Slashdot article making fun of lie detectors</a> [slashdot.org]!  Without mentioning the silly beliefs of Iraqis or anyone else!  Thus clearly demonstrating the pro-Iraqi, anti-American biases of Slashdot.</p><p>Waitaminute... contradiction...  Must... Invoke...  Selective...  Reasoning...  No it's not working!</p><p>Okay, I guess instead I'll just have to say that we make fun of polygraphs, dousing rods, and other such things in articles about those things, and we make fun of Magic Bomb Detectors in articles about those.  Now doesn't <b>that</b> just make a ton more sense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , despite all that , let 's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing .
After all , they are primitive foreigners .
There 's no way good , right-thinking Americans would act that way.Oh hey look , it 's a Slashdot article making fun of lie detectors [ slashdot.org ] !
Without mentioning the silly beliefs of Iraqis or anyone else !
Thus clearly demonstrating the pro-Iraqi , anti-American biases of Slashdot.Waitaminute... contradiction... Must... Invoke... Selective... Reasoning... No it 's not working ! Okay , I guess instead I 'll just have to say that we make fun of polygraphs , dousing rods , and other such things in articles about those things , and we make fun of Magic Bomb Detectors in articles about those .
Now does n't that just make a ton more sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, despite all that, let's make a big deal about what the people in Iraq are doing.
After all, they are primitive foreigners.
There's no way good, right-thinking Americans would act that way.Oh hey look, it's a Slashdot article making fun of lie detectors [slashdot.org]!
Without mentioning the silly beliefs of Iraqis or anyone else!
Thus clearly demonstrating the pro-Iraqi, anti-American biases of Slashdot.Waitaminute... contradiction...  Must... Invoke...  Selective...  Reasoning...  No it's not working!Okay, I guess instead I'll just have to say that we make fun of polygraphs, dousing rods, and other such things in articles about those things, and we make fun of Magic Bomb Detectors in articles about those.
Now doesn't that just make a ton more sense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990376</id>
	<title>Aw, he's humble too!</title>
	<author>MattGWU</author>
	<datestamp>1257006360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't care about Sandia or the Department of Justice or any of them," General Jabiri said. "I know more about this issue than the Americans do. In fact, I know more about bombs than anyone in the world."</p><p>Sound pretty defensive about the devices.  As if they paid a fortune that could have been spent on just about anything else, and found out that they're worthless, but doesn't want to let on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't care about Sandia or the Department of Justice or any of them , " General Jabiri said .
" I know more about this issue than the Americans do .
In fact , I know more about bombs than anyone in the world .
" Sound pretty defensive about the devices .
As if they paid a fortune that could have been spent on just about anything else , and found out that they 're worthless , but does n't want to let on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't care about Sandia or the Department of Justice or any of them," General Jabiri said.
"I know more about this issue than the Americans do.
In fact, I know more about bombs than anyone in the world.
"Sound pretty defensive about the devices.
As if they paid a fortune that could have been spent on just about anything else, and found out that they're worthless, but doesn't want to let on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991392</id>
	<title>too bad</title>
	<author>CreamyG31337</author>
	<datestamp>1257015060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit, you should have stole the magic Y-shaped branch and sold it for $16,000!!!1!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit , you should have stole the magic Y-shaped branch and sold it for $ 16,000 ! !
! 1 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit, you should have stole the magic Y-shaped branch and sold it for $16,000!!
!1!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996206</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257443280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!<br>Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.<br>Homer: Thank you, dear.<br>Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.<br>Homer: Oh, how does it work?<br>Lisa: It doesn't work.<br>Homer: Uh-huh.<br>Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.<br>Homer: Uh-huh.<br>Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?<br>[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]<br>Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Homer : Not a bear in sight .
The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm ! Lisa : That 's specious reasoning , Dad.Homer : Thank you , dear.Lisa : By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.Homer : Oh , how does it work ? Lisa : It does n't work.Homer : Uh-huh.Lisa : It 's just a stupid rock.Homer : Uh-huh.Lisa : But I do n't see any tigers around , do you ?
[ Homer thinks of this , then pulls out some money ] Homer : Lisa , I want to buy your rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homer: Not a bear in sight.
The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.Homer: Thank you, dear.Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.Homer: Oh, how does it work?Lisa: It doesn't work.Homer: Uh-huh.Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.Homer: Uh-huh.Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994906</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>kjshark</author>
	<datestamp>1257437040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly, civilization existed before oil, so it's not a necessary condition. The best thing that could happen in America is a sudden disappearance of all oil. It would take money, therefore political power away from Exxon and the like. There would be immediate rewards for those who could bring energy innovation we need to the market. Then middle east fundimentatists could go back to the 16th century where they belong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , civilization existed before oil , so it 's not a necessary condition .
The best thing that could happen in America is a sudden disappearance of all oil .
It would take money , therefore political power away from Exxon and the like .
There would be immediate rewards for those who could bring energy innovation we need to the market .
Then middle east fundimentatists could go back to the 16th century where they belong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, civilization existed before oil, so it's not a necessary condition.
The best thing that could happen in America is a sudden disappearance of all oil.
It would take money, therefore political power away from Exxon and the like.
There would be immediate rewards for those who could bring energy innovation we need to the market.
Then middle east fundimentatists could go back to the 16th century where they belong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992058</id>
	<title>Incorrect</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1257411900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A sklightily longer search would demonstrate you that with people wanting to beat the polygraph, they work as good as blind chance. Withpeople UNAWARE that polygraph are snake opil which only mneasure a few physiological parameter which are not always correlated to lie, but also to other stuff, in other word in you use it as a magic truth wand , they can impress and LEAD THE PERP to admit the truth. In fact it has been demonstrated that most if not all operator use posychological trick during AND MOST importantly AFTER the test to gather info. Fact is, it only works if you are 1) unaware 2) do not believe in your lie. Even in such case , look at antipolygraph.org you reach MAYBE a 60\% rate barely above chance. It is useful to coerce some unknowing perp, but to c atch spy or good liar a useless piece of woo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A sklightily longer search would demonstrate you that with people wanting to beat the polygraph , they work as good as blind chance .
Withpeople UNAWARE that polygraph are snake opil which only mneasure a few physiological parameter which are not always correlated to lie , but also to other stuff , in other word in you use it as a magic truth wand , they can impress and LEAD THE PERP to admit the truth .
In fact it has been demonstrated that most if not all operator use posychological trick during AND MOST importantly AFTER the test to gather info .
Fact is , it only works if you are 1 ) unaware 2 ) do not believe in your lie .
Even in such case , look at antipolygraph.org you reach MAYBE a 60 \ % rate barely above chance .
It is useful to coerce some unknowing perp , but to c atch spy or good liar a useless piece of woo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A sklightily longer search would demonstrate you that with people wanting to beat the polygraph, they work as good as blind chance.
Withpeople UNAWARE that polygraph are snake opil which only mneasure a few physiological parameter which are not always correlated to lie, but also to other stuff, in other word in you use it as a magic truth wand , they can impress and LEAD THE PERP to admit the truth.
In fact it has been demonstrated that most if not all operator use posychological trick during AND MOST importantly AFTER the test to gather info.
Fact is, it only works if you are 1) unaware 2) do not believe in your lie.
Even in such case , look at antipolygraph.org you reach MAYBE a 60\% rate barely above chance.
It is useful to coerce some unknowing perp, but to c atch spy or good liar a useless piece of woo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991958</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1257453420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.  Solar is nearly as cheap as burning oil or coal to make electricity RIGHT NOW.  Yes, it only works in the day, but if it came down to it, we could adapt.  (via variable pricing : in the extreme case, power at night could cost 5 to 10 times what it does in the day)</p><p>We could use solar energy to convert biomass, or coal, or CO2 from the air right into vehicle fuel.  Obviously the plants that did this would only run in the day time.</p><p>The fuel would probably be synthetic methane : it's the simplest to make, obviously, and can be readily transported and stored.  (hint : another name for it is natural gas, and there are cars and trucks you can buy right now that will run on it, and it's possible to convert virtually any gasoline burning vehicle to run on it)</p><p>If you're wondering, nuclear is off the table.  As it stands right now, it's already more expensive to create energy using nuclear power at current prices for building and running a reactor than solar or wind.  INCLUDING the cost of energy storage.  (underground caverns filled with compressed air is how you store wind or solar energy)  Yes, you do need some methane/natural gas to use the compressed air, but you can get that a couple of ways, including from gassifying coal.</p><p>The reason all this conversion hasn't already happened?  Because the cost of the wars is not included in the price of oil.  If the U.S. government were funding the wars with extra taxes on oil products (even just to make the payments on bonds used to fund the wars), we'd already be frantically converting to electric and natural gas cars, since gas would be at least $5 a gallon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
Solar is nearly as cheap as burning oil or coal to make electricity RIGHT NOW .
Yes , it only works in the day , but if it came down to it , we could adapt .
( via variable pricing : in the extreme case , power at night could cost 5 to 10 times what it does in the day ) We could use solar energy to convert biomass , or coal , or CO2 from the air right into vehicle fuel .
Obviously the plants that did this would only run in the day time.The fuel would probably be synthetic methane : it 's the simplest to make , obviously , and can be readily transported and stored .
( hint : another name for it is natural gas , and there are cars and trucks you can buy right now that will run on it , and it 's possible to convert virtually any gasoline burning vehicle to run on it ) If you 're wondering , nuclear is off the table .
As it stands right now , it 's already more expensive to create energy using nuclear power at current prices for building and running a reactor than solar or wind .
INCLUDING the cost of energy storage .
( underground caverns filled with compressed air is how you store wind or solar energy ) Yes , you do need some methane/natural gas to use the compressed air , but you can get that a couple of ways , including from gassifying coal.The reason all this conversion has n't already happened ?
Because the cost of the wars is not included in the price of oil .
If the U.S. government were funding the wars with extra taxes on oil products ( even just to make the payments on bonds used to fund the wars ) , we 'd already be frantically converting to electric and natural gas cars , since gas would be at least $ 5 a gallon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
Solar is nearly as cheap as burning oil or coal to make electricity RIGHT NOW.
Yes, it only works in the day, but if it came down to it, we could adapt.
(via variable pricing : in the extreme case, power at night could cost 5 to 10 times what it does in the day)We could use solar energy to convert biomass, or coal, or CO2 from the air right into vehicle fuel.
Obviously the plants that did this would only run in the day time.The fuel would probably be synthetic methane : it's the simplest to make, obviously, and can be readily transported and stored.
(hint : another name for it is natural gas, and there are cars and trucks you can buy right now that will run on it, and it's possible to convert virtually any gasoline burning vehicle to run on it)If you're wondering, nuclear is off the table.
As it stands right now, it's already more expensive to create energy using nuclear power at current prices for building and running a reactor than solar or wind.
INCLUDING the cost of energy storage.
(underground caverns filled with compressed air is how you store wind or solar energy)  Yes, you do need some methane/natural gas to use the compressed air, but you can get that a couple of ways, including from gassifying coal.The reason all this conversion hasn't already happened?
Because the cost of the wars is not included in the price of oil.
If the U.S. government were funding the wars with extra taxes on oil products (even just to make the payments on bonds used to fund the wars), we'd already be frantically converting to electric and natural gas cars, since gas would be at least $5 a gallon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990138</id>
	<title>Any goats involved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering if any of their psychic bomb testers stared at goats but odds are the staring had nothing to do making them pass out but had more to do with Saturday night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering if any of their psychic bomb testers stared at goats but odds are the staring had nothing to do making them pass out but had more to do with Saturday night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering if any of their psychic bomb testers stared at goats but odds are the staring had nothing to do making them pass out but had more to do with Saturday night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994560</id>
	<title>Re:May have a benefit....</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1257435240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same people that can be convinced to strap a bomb to their own ass and detonate it will be scared off by bomb detectors?  I find that unlikely...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same people that can be convinced to strap a bomb to their own ass and detonate it will be scared off by bomb detectors ?
I find that unlikely.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same people that can be convinced to strap a bomb to their own ass and detonate it will be scared off by bomb detectors?
I find that unlikely...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382</id>
	<title>So What?  We use "Lie Detectors".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in the U.S., a great many of our police departments and even federal agencies spend millions on a technology that is equally ridiculous and unprovable in any sort of peer-reviewed scientific study: Lie detectors.  If we can have our lie detectors, then surely the Iraqis are entitled to their bomb sniffing dowsing rods.</p><p>The proponents of these devices, when confronted with the undeniable technical worthlessness of them, inevitably retreat to the claim that the actual benefits come from the psychology of having people being "investigated" by the devices believe that they are actually capable of something, and then watching their reactions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the U.S. , a great many of our police departments and even federal agencies spend millions on a technology that is equally ridiculous and unprovable in any sort of peer-reviewed scientific study : Lie detectors .
If we can have our lie detectors , then surely the Iraqis are entitled to their bomb sniffing dowsing rods.The proponents of these devices , when confronted with the undeniable technical worthlessness of them , inevitably retreat to the claim that the actual benefits come from the psychology of having people being " investigated " by the devices believe that they are actually capable of something , and then watching their reactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the U.S., a great many of our police departments and even federal agencies spend millions on a technology that is equally ridiculous and unprovable in any sort of peer-reviewed scientific study: Lie detectors.
If we can have our lie detectors, then surely the Iraqis are entitled to their bomb sniffing dowsing rods.The proponents of these devices, when confronted with the undeniable technical worthlessness of them, inevitably retreat to the claim that the actual benefits come from the psychology of having people being "investigated" by the devices believe that they are actually capable of something, and then watching their reactions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990870</id>
	<title>Just need 2 metal rods</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1257010380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen it done to locate metal pipes many times and tried it myself at home.  It works.  Get two metal rods about 2 feet long, bend the ends to hold in your hand and walk slowly, when over a metal object they ends will come together.  Watched a guy locate an entire septic system using this on TV once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen it done to locate metal pipes many times and tried it myself at home .
It works .
Get two metal rods about 2 feet long , bend the ends to hold in your hand and walk slowly , when over a metal object they ends will come together .
Watched a guy locate an entire septic system using this on TV once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen it done to locate metal pipes many times and tried it myself at home.
It works.
Get two metal rods about 2 feet long, bend the ends to hold in your hand and walk slowly, when over a metal object they ends will come together.
Watched a guy locate an entire septic system using this on TV once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997752</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257450660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one point;</i></p><p>Personally I think the Pentagon's deeply credulous and well funded search for psychics to be better proof of their non-existence than the unclaimed Randi Foundation prize.  You can claim Randi is biased against the existence of psychics (and of course this makes their powers not work).  But these guys really, really wanted to find actual, no bullshit, no cold-reading, honest-to-God psychics.  And they didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on " psychic warfare " projects at one point ; Personally I think the Pentagon 's deeply credulous and well funded search for psychics to be better proof of their non-existence than the unclaimed Randi Foundation prize .
You can claim Randi is biased against the existence of psychics ( and of course this makes their powers not work ) .
But these guys really , really wanted to find actual , no bullshit , no cold-reading , honest-to-God psychics .
And they did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one point;Personally I think the Pentagon's deeply credulous and well funded search for psychics to be better proof of their non-existence than the unclaimed Randi Foundation prize.
You can claim Randi is biased against the existence of psychics (and of course this makes their powers not work).
But these guys really, really wanted to find actual, no bullshit, no cold-reading, honest-to-God psychics.
And they didn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989392</id>
	<title>I know how this got started</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1256999520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear General Jehad al-Jabiri,</p><p>You may be surprised to hear from me. I am Mrs. John Mutube, former wife of the late general in charge of Nigerian counterterrorism forces. Upon his death I was amazed to discover 15000 (FIFTEEN THOUSAND) special BOMB DETECTION RODS. As my party has fallen out of favor, I find myself destitute. So I am offering you full possession of these BOMB DETECTION RODS for only the cost of shipping. Since the devices are heavy, I must ask that you pay for postage so I can deliver you the rods. Send either money order or credit card particulars to</p><p>Mrs. John Mutube<br>123 Mutube Street<br>Benin, Nigeria</p><p>I look forward to your successful counterterrorism endeavor.</p><p>I am, yours truly,</p><p>Mrs. John Mutube</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear General Jehad al-Jabiri,You may be surprised to hear from me .
I am Mrs. John Mutube , former wife of the late general in charge of Nigerian counterterrorism forces .
Upon his death I was amazed to discover 15000 ( FIFTEEN THOUSAND ) special BOMB DETECTION RODS .
As my party has fallen out of favor , I find myself destitute .
So I am offering you full possession of these BOMB DETECTION RODS for only the cost of shipping .
Since the devices are heavy , I must ask that you pay for postage so I can deliver you the rods .
Send either money order or credit card particulars toMrs .
John Mutube123 Mutube StreetBenin , NigeriaI look forward to your successful counterterrorism endeavor.I am , yours truly,Mrs .
John Mutube</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear General Jehad al-Jabiri,You may be surprised to hear from me.
I am Mrs. John Mutube, former wife of the late general in charge of Nigerian counterterrorism forces.
Upon his death I was amazed to discover 15000 (FIFTEEN THOUSAND) special BOMB DETECTION RODS.
As my party has fallen out of favor, I find myself destitute.
So I am offering you full possession of these BOMB DETECTION RODS for only the cost of shipping.
Since the devices are heavy, I must ask that you pay for postage so I can deliver you the rods.
Send either money order or credit card particulars toMrs.
John Mutube123 Mutube StreetBenin, NigeriaI look forward to your successful counterterrorism endeavor.I am, yours truly,Mrs.
John Mutube</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994178</id>
	<title>Re:It's not so stupid...</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1257433140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So in effect, this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb.</p></div><p>Well yes, but is there anything preventing Iraqi regulars from searching anyone they feel has a bomb anyway?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Even if I know it's bogus (and I'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this), it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb.</p></div><p>Again, I don't think 4th amendment rights apply in Iraq right now. As an explanation, I'm picturing some bureaucrats pocketing big kickbacks, a few troops buying into this, and a lot of troops grumbling under their breath about graft. Then again, this was probably bought with US tax dollars, since we looted their treasury right away and took out big loans on their behalf. Not that I'm going to complain about them ripping us off after our huge financial exploitation of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So in effect , this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb.Well yes , but is there anything preventing Iraqi regulars from searching anyone they feel has a bomb anyway ?
Even if I know it 's bogus ( and I 'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this ) , it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb.Again , I do n't think 4th amendment rights apply in Iraq right now .
As an explanation , I 'm picturing some bureaucrats pocketing big kickbacks , a few troops buying into this , and a lot of troops grumbling under their breath about graft .
Then again , this was probably bought with US tax dollars , since we looted their treasury right away and took out big loans on their behalf .
Not that I 'm going to complain about them ripping us off after our huge financial exploitation of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in effect, this device will justify my search of anyone that I feel has a bomb.Well yes, but is there anything preventing Iraqi regulars from searching anyone they feel has a bomb anyway?
Even if I know it's bogus (and I'd not be surprised if the Iraqis do know this), it permits me to search anyone I want just because I feel they may have a bomb.Again, I don't think 4th amendment rights apply in Iraq right now.
As an explanation, I'm picturing some bureaucrats pocketing big kickbacks, a few troops buying into this, and a lot of troops grumbling under their breath about graft.
Then again, this was probably bought with US tax dollars, since we looted their treasury right away and took out big loans on their behalf.
Not that I'm going to complain about them ripping us off after our huge financial exploitation of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990380</id>
	<title>Product website for the ade 651</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ade651.com/ade651in.html" title="ade651.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ade651.com/ade651in.html</a> [ade651.com]</p><p>Making "data" more plural by adding an "s" means it's more scientific! (not)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Substances Recognition:</p><p>Black Powder, Used Weapons, Fireworks, all types of Ammunition,<br>Ammonium Nitrate (ANFO-ANNIE), Chinese Czech and Russian Semtex, Plastic (C4, C1,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), Dynamite, RDX, TNT, Nitroglycerine, Tetryl, Grenades, Mines, Amphetamine, Cocaine, Crack, Heroine, Marijuana, Cannabis, Morphine, Ivory, Human research, Bank notes,</p> </div><p>It detects marijuana AND cannabis, this is a<i> wonder device</i>, people!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ade651.com/ade651in.html [ ade651.com ] Making " data " more plural by adding an " s " means it 's more scientific !
( not ) Substances Recognition : Black Powder , Used Weapons , Fireworks , all types of Ammunition,Ammonium Nitrate ( ANFO-ANNIE ) , Chinese Czech and Russian Semtex , Plastic ( C4 , C1 , ... ) , Dynamite , RDX , TNT , Nitroglycerine , Tetryl , Grenades , Mines , Amphetamine , Cocaine , Crack , Heroine , Marijuana , Cannabis , Morphine , Ivory , Human research , Bank notes , It detects marijuana AND cannabis , this is a wonder device , people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ade651.com/ade651in.html [ade651.com]Making "data" more plural by adding an "s" means it's more scientific!
(not)Substances Recognition:Black Powder, Used Weapons, Fireworks, all types of Ammunition,Ammonium Nitrate (ANFO-ANNIE), Chinese Czech and Russian Semtex, Plastic (C4, C1, ...), Dynamite, RDX, TNT, Nitroglycerine, Tetryl, Grenades, Mines, Amphetamine, Cocaine, Crack, Heroine, Marijuana, Cannabis, Morphine, Ivory, Human research, Bank notes, It detects marijuana AND cannabis, this is a wonder device, people!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991590</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1257017160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.</p></div></blockquote><p>"I couldn't figure it out, so it must be magic" is pheromone that hucksters and charlatans can't resist.  If you replace "magic" with "God," you end up with the Creationist/Intelligent Design movement.

</p><p>It is not incredibly easy to be skeptical.  We're human beings, we're fundamentally wired to respond emotionally to each other, to trust each other, to yield to peer pressure, to seek out patterns even where they don't exist.  This creates a rich soil for con artists to sow their seeds.  If skepticism is so incredibly easy, why do the overwhelming majority of human beings follow one of a variety of organized religions?  Why do so many superstitions survive?  Why do we have Enron, Bernie Madoff, the tech bubble, or the clusterfuck that is the current financial crisis?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it , and did it .
" I could n't figure it out , so it must be magic " is pheromone that hucksters and charlatans ca n't resist .
If you replace " magic " with " God , " you end up with the Creationist/Intelligent Design movement .
It is not incredibly easy to be skeptical .
We 're human beings , we 're fundamentally wired to respond emotionally to each other , to trust each other , to yield to peer pressure , to seek out patterns even where they do n't exist .
This creates a rich soil for con artists to sow their seeds .
If skepticism is so incredibly easy , why do the overwhelming majority of human beings follow one of a variety of organized religions ?
Why do so many superstitions survive ?
Why do we have Enron , Bernie Madoff , the tech bubble , or the clusterfuck that is the current financial crisis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my mind there was simply no way you could hold a branch and make it do that -- the branch itself wanted to do it, and did it.
"I couldn't figure it out, so it must be magic" is pheromone that hucksters and charlatans can't resist.
If you replace "magic" with "God," you end up with the Creationist/Intelligent Design movement.
It is not incredibly easy to be skeptical.
We're human beings, we're fundamentally wired to respond emotionally to each other, to trust each other, to yield to peer pressure, to seek out patterns even where they don't exist.
This creates a rich soil for con artists to sow their seeds.
If skepticism is so incredibly easy, why do the overwhelming majority of human beings follow one of a variety of organized religions?
Why do so many superstitions survive?
Why do we have Enron, Bernie Madoff, the tech bubble, or the clusterfuck that is the current financial crisis?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994262</id>
	<title>Re:May have a benefit....</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1257433620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes but they're also blind enough to believe Allah will protect them from the bomb detectors.  Blind faith works in all directions.  In a sense, the fact that they're able to pass these checkpoints undetected may serve to "prove" to them that their cause is righteous and just.  How else could all the bomb detection fail?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but they 're also blind enough to believe Allah will protect them from the bomb detectors .
Blind faith works in all directions .
In a sense , the fact that they 're able to pass these checkpoints undetected may serve to " prove " to them that their cause is righteous and just .
How else could all the bomb detection fail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but they're also blind enough to believe Allah will protect them from the bomb detectors.
Blind faith works in all directions.
In a sense, the fact that they're able to pass these checkpoints undetected may serve to "prove" to them that their cause is righteous and just.
How else could all the bomb detection fail?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998246</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, laugh at the people in Iraq</title>
	<author>AaronW</author>
	<datestamp>1257452700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly don't believe in them, but my late grandfather did and used dowsing rods to find a spot to drill a well after previous attempts failed. He struck an artesian well, though it should also be noted that the spot he picked also happened to stay green during the summer. Sometimes it comes down to just dumb luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly do n't believe in them , but my late grandfather did and used dowsing rods to find a spot to drill a well after previous attempts failed .
He struck an artesian well , though it should also be noted that the spot he picked also happened to stay green during the summer .
Sometimes it comes down to just dumb luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly don't believe in them, but my late grandfather did and used dowsing rods to find a spot to drill a well after previous attempts failed.
He struck an artesian well, though it should also be noted that the spot he picked also happened to stay green during the summer.
Sometimes it comes down to just dumb luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992740</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257420120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any chance this guy had access to geological survey information?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any chance this guy had access to geological survey information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any chance this guy had access to geological survey information?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989722</id>
	<title>Works real well, actually</title>
	<author>sabernet</author>
	<datestamp>1257001500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dowser explodes, thereby simultaneously indicating where the bomb was and disposing it.
<br> <br>
What?  Too soon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dowser explodes , thereby simultaneously indicating where the bomb was and disposing it .
What ? Too soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dowser explodes, thereby simultaneously indicating where the bomb was and disposing it.
What?  Too soon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991220</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>millennial</author>
	<datestamp>1257013500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you mean that 1 out of the 6,700,0000,000+ people on the planet managed to guess correctly where she would be? AMAZING.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you mean that 1 out of the 6,700,0000,000 + people on the planet managed to guess correctly where she would be ?
AMAZING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you mean that 1 out of the 6,700,0000,000+ people on the planet managed to guess correctly where she would be?
AMAZING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998494</id>
	<title>Re:Bugs Bunny</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1257453600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking about this, it's probably MUCH more effective from a soldier's standpoint. You find bombs attached to bombers who aren't going to kill YOU.<br> <br> You let the really crazy ones through, no problems!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking about this , it 's probably MUCH more effective from a soldier 's standpoint .
You find bombs attached to bombers who are n't going to kill YOU .
You let the really crazy ones through , no problems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking about this, it's probably MUCH more effective from a soldier's standpoint.
You find bombs attached to bombers who aren't going to kill YOU.
You let the really crazy ones through, no problems!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993462</id>
	<title>Re:What are we doing there?</title>
	<author>mr100percent</author>
	<datestamp>1257428400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Impressive trolling. Obama is drawing down the troops, as he said it would take a year and a half. He's almost done</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Impressive trolling .
Obama is drawing down the troops , as he said it would take a year and a half .
He 's almost done</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Impressive trolling.
Obama is drawing down the troops, as he said it would take a year and a half.
He's almost done</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989828</id>
	<title>Re:So What? We use "Lie Detectors".</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1257002580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No post about polygraphy is complete without a link to <a href="http://antipolygraph.org/" title="antipolygraph.org">antipolygraph</a> [antipolygraph.org].</p><p>For anyone interested, the site has a lot of great information, including a free <a href="http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf" title="antipolygraph.org">book</a> [antipolygraph.org] that goes into intimate details regarding how polygraphs are operated and how their results are interpreted to mean either "truth" or "lies".  They even have the operator's handbooks and interpretation guides for giving an examination and information on how to "beat the box".</p><p>Very interesting stuff -- doubly so for anyone who might sometime be in a position where taking a polygraph is required for a job or security clearance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No post about polygraphy is complete without a link to antipolygraph [ antipolygraph.org ] .For anyone interested , the site has a lot of great information , including a free book [ antipolygraph.org ] that goes into intimate details regarding how polygraphs are operated and how their results are interpreted to mean either " truth " or " lies " .
They even have the operator 's handbooks and interpretation guides for giving an examination and information on how to " beat the box " .Very interesting stuff -- doubly so for anyone who might sometime be in a position where taking a polygraph is required for a job or security clearance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No post about polygraphy is complete without a link to antipolygraph [antipolygraph.org].For anyone interested, the site has a lot of great information, including a free book [antipolygraph.org] that goes into intimate details regarding how polygraphs are operated and how their results are interpreted to mean either "truth" or "lies".
They even have the operator's handbooks and interpretation guides for giving an examination and information on how to "beat the box".Very interesting stuff -- doubly so for anyone who might sometime be in a position where taking a polygraph is required for a job or security clearance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989802</id>
	<title>Re:Water for Thought...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1257002340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't believe a word of it unless you send a link to a guy selling the things with that guarantee. Dowsing for water pipes on the other-hand sort of has a degree of reasoning. The flow of water through the pipe could induce a flow of charge. If you stand above the pipe and hold a stick with two metal rods attached to it hanging at right angles. When you are over the flow they move to form a straight line, this is to satisfy the magnetic field.<br> <br>
\_\_\_\_\_\_ Ground<br>
&gt;====&gt; Pipe w/ direction of flow<br> <br>

(\_(\_(\_(\_( Ground w/ magnetic field lines<br>
&gt;======&gt; Pipe w/ direction of flow<br>
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) More field lines going into the earth.<br> <br>
Of course though there might be some degree of moving charge I sincerely doubt it would be anything near enough to pull a stunt like this off. But at least it requires a highschool level science education rather than magic. I'm sure we have some kind of fancy laser radar xray... some kind of scanning tech that would find water much more accurately. So the point is kind of moot anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe a word of it unless you send a link to a guy selling the things with that guarantee .
Dowsing for water pipes on the other-hand sort of has a degree of reasoning .
The flow of water through the pipe could induce a flow of charge .
If you stand above the pipe and hold a stick with two metal rods attached to it hanging at right angles .
When you are over the flow they move to form a straight line , this is to satisfy the magnetic field .
\ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ Ground &gt; = = = = &gt; Pipe w/ direction of flow ( \ _ ( \ _ ( \ _ ( \ _ ( Ground w/ magnetic field lines &gt; = = = = = = &gt; Pipe w/ direction of flow ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) More field lines going into the earth .
Of course though there might be some degree of moving charge I sincerely doubt it would be anything near enough to pull a stunt like this off .
But at least it requires a highschool level science education rather than magic .
I 'm sure we have some kind of fancy laser radar xray... some kind of scanning tech that would find water much more accurately .
So the point is kind of moot anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe a word of it unless you send a link to a guy selling the things with that guarantee.
Dowsing for water pipes on the other-hand sort of has a degree of reasoning.
The flow of water through the pipe could induce a flow of charge.
If you stand above the pipe and hold a stick with two metal rods attached to it hanging at right angles.
When you are over the flow they move to form a straight line, this is to satisfy the magnetic field.
\_\_\_\_\_\_ Ground
&gt;====&gt; Pipe w/ direction of flow 

(\_(\_(\_(\_( Ground w/ magnetic field lines
&gt;======&gt; Pipe w/ direction of flow
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) More field lines going into the earth.
Of course though there might be some degree of moving charge I sincerely doubt it would be anything near enough to pull a stunt like this off.
But at least it requires a highschool level science education rather than magic.
I'm sure we have some kind of fancy laser radar xray... some kind of scanning tech that would find water much more accurately.
So the point is kind of moot anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991668</id>
	<title>Re:Best quote of the article</title>
	<author>Em Adespoton</author>
	<datestamp>1257017880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure it's all in the translation, but that explains a few things<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it 's all in the translation , but that explains a few things ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it's all in the translation, but that explains a few things ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992634</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of upsets me</title>
	<author>Afty0r</author>
	<datestamp>1257418740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we'd already be frantically converting to electric and natural gas cars, since gas would be at least $5 a gallon.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why? Here in the UK, the price of "gas" (petrol) at my local forecourt is $7.91 (converted to US$) - and we're not frantically moving to anything except marginally more efficient diesels, and generally bigger heavier chassis...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 'd already be frantically converting to electric and natural gas cars , since gas would be at least $ 5 a gallon.Why ?
Here in the UK , the price of " gas " ( petrol ) at my local forecourt is $ 7.91 ( converted to US $ ) - and we 're not frantically moving to anything except marginally more efficient diesels , and generally bigger heavier chassis.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we'd already be frantically converting to electric and natural gas cars, since gas would be at least $5 a gallon.Why?
Here in the UK, the price of "gas" (petrol) at my local forecourt is $7.91 (converted to US$) - and we're not frantically moving to anything except marginally more efficient diesels, and generally bigger heavier chassis...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991654</id>
	<title>It's psychological!  Stop thinking logical!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter if it actually, scientifically works -- all that matters is if the person being scanned THINKS it might work.  The security person would be looking at the reaction of the person being scanned to find out if there is something to be worried about in the front left jacket pocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if it actually , scientifically works -- all that matters is if the person being scanned THINKS it might work .
The security person would be looking at the reaction of the person being scanned to find out if there is something to be worried about in the front left jacket pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if it actually, scientifically works -- all that matters is if the person being scanned THINKS it might work.
The security person would be looking at the reaction of the person being scanned to find out if there is something to be worried about in the front left jacket pocket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989894</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why</title>
	<author>Jarik C-Bol</author>
	<datestamp>1257003060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you're thinking of iran, not iraq numbnuts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're thinking of iran , not iraq numbnuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're thinking of iran, not iraq numbnuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997526</id>
	<title>Re:May have a benefit....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257449760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My friend, terrorists are not stupid.<br>And if you really think about it -- neither are Iraqi officials.  They are just corrupt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend , terrorists are not stupid.And if you really think about it -- neither are Iraqi officials .
They are just corrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend, terrorists are not stupid.And if you really think about it -- neither are Iraqi officials.
They are just corrupt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990592</id>
	<title>Makes sense</title>
	<author>Groggnrath</author>
	<datestamp>1257007920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Grandfather made a living finding water wells using a Dowsing rod. For him, it worked every time.<br> <br>

I use survey of watershed areas, and known Geological formations to make an estimated guess as to underground water movement. <br> <br>

While both are guesses, it makes sense that an uneducated or more superstitiously natured person would simply choose what makes sense to them. Sure, mine is an educated guess, but my Grandfather did find hundreds of wells in his time. You can't really argue with results. Even if those results are based of your subconscious hunch rather than your conscious facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Grandfather made a living finding water wells using a Dowsing rod .
For him , it worked every time .
I use survey of watershed areas , and known Geological formations to make an estimated guess as to underground water movement .
While both are guesses , it makes sense that an uneducated or more superstitiously natured person would simply choose what makes sense to them .
Sure , mine is an educated guess , but my Grandfather did find hundreds of wells in his time .
You ca n't really argue with results .
Even if those results are based of your subconscious hunch rather than your conscious facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Grandfather made a living finding water wells using a Dowsing rod.
For him, it worked every time.
I use survey of watershed areas, and known Geological formations to make an estimated guess as to underground water movement.
While both are guesses, it makes sense that an uneducated or more superstitiously natured person would simply choose what makes sense to them.
Sure, mine is an educated guess, but my Grandfather did find hundreds of wells in his time.
You can't really argue with results.
Even if those results are based of your subconscious hunch rather than your conscious facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992012</id>
	<title>water dowasing DO NOT WORK</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1257454380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But in place like where it is done, the water table is usually very high. So you cab dig ANYWHERE and get the same freaking result. Heck dowser pretend there are underground river where you dig. No there aren't. Basically go to randi.,org and look on dowser testing. They do no better than blind luck. The guy never had to give back money in 20 years, not because he is efficacious, but because you litterally live over huge amount of water.  Look at the video where they had dowser search for pipe with running water. And laugh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in place like where it is done , the water table is usually very high .
So you cab dig ANYWHERE and get the same freaking result .
Heck dowser pretend there are underground river where you dig .
No there are n't .
Basically go to randi.,org and look on dowser testing .
They do no better than blind luck .
The guy never had to give back money in 20 years , not because he is efficacious , but because you litterally live over huge amount of water .
Look at the video where they had dowser search for pipe with running water .
And laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in place like where it is done, the water table is usually very high.
So you cab dig ANYWHERE and get the same freaking result.
Heck dowser pretend there are underground river where you dig.
No there aren't.
Basically go to randi.,org and look on dowser testing.
They do no better than blind luck.
The guy never had to give back money in 20 years, not because he is efficacious, but because you litterally live over huge amount of water.
Look at the video where they had dowser search for pipe with running water.
And laugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992658</id>
	<title>Re:Best quote of the article</title>
	<author>TeethWhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1257419160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am aware of all bomb-detecting traditions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am aware of all bomb-detecting traditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am aware of all bomb-detecting traditions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991268</id>
	<title>Re:That's even more moronic</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1257013860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not if they were paid to a company owned by the Prime Minister's brother-in-law. Which wouldn't surprise me, given the way they defend their rods' effectiveness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not if they were paid to a company owned by the Prime Minister 's brother-in-law .
Which would n't surprise me , given the way they defend their rods ' effectiveness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not if they were paid to a company owned by the Prime Minister's brother-in-law.
Which wouldn't surprise me, given the way they defend their rods' effectiveness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989674</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30006064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30020410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29999518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30001480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2340204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990604
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30001480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993964
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29999518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989978
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990896
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995124
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993878
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990900
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30006064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995532
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29995278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29997278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29996932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30002596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29998368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991958
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992858
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.30020410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991660
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993106
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29993282
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29994906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29991668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29989392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29992212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2340204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2340204.29990168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
