<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_1432232</id>
	<title>Glenn Beck Loses Dispute Over Parody Domain</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257866220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CuteSteveJobs writes <i>"Glenn Beck <a href="http://gawker.com/5400754/glenn-beck-meets-internet-loses">fought the law and the law won</a>. Parody website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com attacked Beck using the same straw man arguments Beck himself is famous for: 'We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 &mdash; in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder ... Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?'

Beck didn't see the humour and <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355560,00.asp">tried to have the site shut down</a>. He sued the creator on the grounds the site 'violated his name as a trademark.' But in a sudden outbreak of common sense, <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&amp;art\_aid=116991">WIPO rejected Beck's complaint</a> finding the site 'can be said to be making a political statement,' which is a 'legitimate non-commercial use' of Beck's name. But after winning, the owner voluntarily <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/glenn-beck-loses-domain-dispute-still-ends-up-with-domain.ars">handed Beck the domain anyway</a>. Still, it's comforting to know that satire &mdash; the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear &mdash; is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CuteSteveJobs writes " Glenn Beck fought the law and the law won .
Parody website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com attacked Beck using the same straw man arguments Beck himself is famous for : 'We 're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990    in fact , we think he did n't !
But we ca n't help but wonder ... Why wo n't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990 ?
' Beck did n't see the humour and tried to have the site shut down .
He sued the creator on the grounds the site 'violated his name as a trademark .
' But in a sudden outbreak of common sense , WIPO rejected Beck 's complaint finding the site 'can be said to be making a political statement, ' which is a 'legitimate non-commercial use ' of Beck 's name .
But after winning , the owner voluntarily handed Beck the domain anyway .
Still , it 's comforting to know that satire    the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear    is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CuteSteveJobs writes "Glenn Beck fought the law and the law won.
Parody website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com attacked Beck using the same straw man arguments Beck himself is famous for: 'We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 — in fact, we think he didn't!
But we can't help but wonder ... Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?
'

Beck didn't see the humour and tried to have the site shut down.
He sued the creator on the grounds the site 'violated his name as a trademark.
' But in a sudden outbreak of common sense, WIPO rejected Beck's complaint finding the site 'can be said to be making a political statement,' which is a 'legitimate non-commercial use' of Beck's name.
But after winning, the owner voluntarily handed Beck the domain anyway.
Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052878</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>He provided evidence that wouldn't get someone a driver's license in most states.</i> <br> <br>He's provided a birth certificate and a SS card.  That would get a drivers license in every state I know of.  What state do you live in, and what other requirements do they have?</htmltext>
<tokenext>He provided evidence that would n't get someone a driver 's license in most states .
He 's provided a birth certificate and a SS card .
That would get a drivers license in every state I know of .
What state do you live in , and what other requirements do they have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He provided evidence that wouldn't get someone a driver's license in most states.
He's provided a birth certificate and a SS card.
That would get a drivers license in every state I know of.
What state do you live in, and what other requirements do they have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604</id>
	<title>Anyone remember when conservatism was serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257873060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics? Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics ?
Hard to believe they once were n't just a bunch of brain-dead , cackling circus buffoons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics?
Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046976</id>
	<title>Well this domain is still available</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257874380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<a href="http://laurabushkilledaguy.com/" title="laurabushkilledaguy.com" rel="nofollow">http://laurabushkilledaguy.com/</a> [laurabushkilledaguy.com]

Oh wait, that's not parody. Different case law altogether..</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //laurabushkilledaguy.com/ [ laurabushkilledaguy.com ] Oh wait , that 's not parody .
Different case law altogether. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
http://laurabushkilledaguy.com/ [laurabushkilledaguy.com]

Oh wait, that's not parody.
Different case law altogether..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046024</id>
	<title>Fame + Morality + Condemnation = Scandal</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1257870720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall Jerry Falwell has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler\_Magazine\_v.\_Falwell" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">similar case</a> [wikipedia.org] and lost.  When you make a living condemning HALF THE WORLD you ought to expect this sort of thing.  Beck's opinions are usually heavily slanted towards big business and he frequently denigrates anybody who would try to slow down the economy with harmful regulation (sic).

</p><p> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Arguing-Idiots-Small-Minds-Government/dp/1416595015" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">His book</a> [amazon.com] makes me laugh, as I feel that the title implies that it's a Howto guide for people to interact with him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall Jerry Falwell has a similar case [ wikipedia.org ] and lost .
When you make a living condemning HALF THE WORLD you ought to expect this sort of thing .
Beck 's opinions are usually heavily slanted towards big business and he frequently denigrates anybody who would try to slow down the economy with harmful regulation ( sic ) .
His book [ amazon.com ] makes me laugh , as I feel that the title implies that it 's a Howto guide for people to interact with him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall Jerry Falwell has a similar case [wikipedia.org] and lost.
When you make a living condemning HALF THE WORLD you ought to expect this sort of thing.
Beck's opinions are usually heavily slanted towards big business and he frequently denigrates anybody who would try to slow down the economy with harmful regulation (sic).
His book [amazon.com] makes me laugh, as I feel that the title implies that it's a Howto guide for people to interact with him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046368</id>
	<title>Re:Who the fuck is Glenn Beck...</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1257872040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?</p></div><p>Explain what SFW porn is, please.</p></div><p>Depends where you work. I expect that if you work for the Playboy organisation, SFW porn is stuff produced by your employer, NSFW porn is that produced by competitors (unless you're in market research).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn ? Explain what SFW porn is , please.Depends where you work .
I expect that if you work for the Playboy organisation , SFW porn is stuff produced by your employer , NSFW porn is that produced by competitors ( unless you 're in market research ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?Explain what SFW porn is, please.Depends where you work.
I expect that if you work for the Playboy organisation, SFW porn is stuff produced by your employer, NSFW porn is that produced by competitors (unless you're in market research).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047210</id>
	<title>Re:still a valid concern</title>
	<author>cowscows</author>
	<datestamp>1257875160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glenn Beck long ago gave up any right to make that argument. In fact, that was the whole point of the website in question.</p><p>He creates rumor and slander on his shows and in his writing, and defends it with his First Amendment rights. For him to then turn around and whine(or sue) when someone gives him a taste of his own medicine is entirely hypocritical. Not that it's surprising that he's a hypocrite, it's really the only way to be as ideological as he tries to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck long ago gave up any right to make that argument .
In fact , that was the whole point of the website in question.He creates rumor and slander on his shows and in his writing , and defends it with his First Amendment rights .
For him to then turn around and whine ( or sue ) when someone gives him a taste of his own medicine is entirely hypocritical .
Not that it 's surprising that he 's a hypocrite , it 's really the only way to be as ideological as he tries to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck long ago gave up any right to make that argument.
In fact, that was the whole point of the website in question.He creates rumor and slander on his shows and in his writing, and defends it with his First Amendment rights.
For him to then turn around and whine(or sue) when someone gives him a taste of his own medicine is entirely hypocritical.
Not that it's surprising that he's a hypocrite, it's really the only way to be as ideological as he tries to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055206</id>
	<title>Re:DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com</title>
	<author>darkpixel2k</author>
	<datestamp>1257867060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com</p></div><p>
Do you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is to subscribe to the mailing list?<br>
WeHateKDawson-request@list.DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com<br>
<br>
71 characters...<br>
<br>
Screw the mailing list.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com Do you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is to subscribe to the mailing list ?
WeHateKDawson-request @ list.DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com 71 characters.. . Screw the mailing list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com
Do you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is to subscribe to the mailing list?
WeHateKDawson-request@list.DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com

71 characters...

Screw the mailing list.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046592</id>
	<title>Spread the controversy...</title>
	<author>Brazilian Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1257873060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The parody domain has been given to Glenn Beck but the controversy still hasn't been answered.<br>
<br>
Here's the new(ish, same content, different domain) site: <a href="http://gb1990.com/" title="gb1990.com" rel="nofollow">http://gb1990.com/</a> [gb1990.com] <br>
<br>
Spread the controversy because, after all, people are asking whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.  I, personally, cannot believe he did such a thing but why hasn't Glenn denied these allegations?<br>
<br>
What is Glenn hiding, if he's hiding anything at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parody domain has been given to Glenn Beck but the controversy still has n't been answered .
Here 's the new ( ish , same content , different domain ) site : http : //gb1990.com/ [ gb1990.com ] Spread the controversy because , after all , people are asking whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 .
I , personally , can not believe he did such a thing but why has n't Glenn denied these allegations ?
What is Glenn hiding , if he 's hiding anything at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parody domain has been given to Glenn Beck but the controversy still hasn't been answered.
Here's the new(ish, same content, different domain) site: http://gb1990.com/ [gb1990.com] 

Spread the controversy because, after all, people are asking whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.
I, personally, cannot believe he did such a thing but why hasn't Glenn denied these allegations?
What is Glenn hiding, if he's hiding anything at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050408</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257886440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why do you hate America?"</p><p>The best way to combat those kind of questions is to return with a question "Why do you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." and keep doing so. The attacker ends up explaining why they are an idiot.</p><p>"Why do you think I hate America?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why do you hate America ?
" The best way to combat those kind of questions is to return with a question " Why do you ... " and keep doing so .
The attacker ends up explaining why they are an idiot .
" Why do you think I hate America ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why do you hate America?
"The best way to combat those kind of questions is to return with a question "Why do you ..." and keep doing so.
The attacker ends up explaining why they are an idiot.
"Why do you think I hate America?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053792</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257858720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>television troll</p></div><p>Also known (when they're on the radio) as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock\_jock" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">shock-jocks</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>I agree with you. It is sad that the general population are not critical/forward-thinking enough to throw this guy off the airwaves in disgust. Perhaps he is just saying what they want to hear.</p><p>The real question is, why do the general population want to hear the things he says?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>television trollAlso known ( when they 're on the radio ) as shock-jocks [ wikipedia.org ] .I agree with you .
It is sad that the general population are not critical/forward-thinking enough to throw this guy off the airwaves in disgust .
Perhaps he is just saying what they want to hear.The real question is , why do the general population want to hear the things he says ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>television trollAlso known (when they're on the radio) as shock-jocks [wikipedia.org].I agree with you.
It is sad that the general population are not critical/forward-thinking enough to throw this guy off the airwaves in disgust.
Perhaps he is just saying what they want to hear.The real question is, why do the general population want to hear the things he says?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048914</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257880800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it?</p><p>Name the date of the broadcast of either his TV show or his radio show when he made this claim?  The place of Obama's birth is not an issue that GB has ever spent any time dwelling on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Glenn Beck , to this day , repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya .
He asks , if he was born here , why does n't he prove it ? Name the date of the broadcast of either his TV show or his radio show when he made this claim ?
The place of Obama 's birth is not an issue that GB has ever spent any time dwelling on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it?Name the date of the broadcast of either his TV show or his radio show when he made this claim?
The place of Obama's birth is not an issue that GB has ever spent any time dwelling on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052218</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the Boston Tea Party was in 1773 not 1776.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the Boston Tea Party was in 1773 not 1776 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the Boston Tea Party was in 1773 not 1776.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055842</id>
	<title>Re:Would it be funny if...</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1257871260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds? </i></p><p>The Rightwing are showing the cracks in their logic by asking this same question in so many varying ways.  "How would you feel if this was your Mother, or your Child or YOU?"</p><p>Linus Torvalds and my mother, etc., don't richly deserve the ironic statement being made through such a gag.  It's called, "Getting a taste of your own medicine."  If we wanted to give Linus Torvalds a taste of his own medicine, we'd have to write some revolutionary software and give it away to him for free.  If we wanted to give my mother a taste of her own medicine, we'd have to give her some delicious home-made chocolate chip cookies.</p><p>Do you see how this works?</p><p>No.  You don't.  And there's a reason for that.  People who support the likes of Glenn Beck are missing certain brain functions which the rest of the human race comes equipped with.  They're not as evolved.  Their frontal lobes are damaged or mal-formed or just didn't quite grow enough.  You could no more expect a monkey or a dog to understand these principles.</p><p>Sorry.  Now stop talking.  You're showing your evolutionary disadvantage to the humans.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds ?
The Rightwing are showing the cracks in their logic by asking this same question in so many varying ways .
" How would you feel if this was your Mother , or your Child or YOU ?
" Linus Torvalds and my mother , etc. , do n't richly deserve the ironic statement being made through such a gag .
It 's called , " Getting a taste of your own medicine .
" If we wanted to give Linus Torvalds a taste of his own medicine , we 'd have to write some revolutionary software and give it away to him for free .
If we wanted to give my mother a taste of her own medicine , we 'd have to give her some delicious home-made chocolate chip cookies.Do you see how this works ? No .
You do n't .
And there 's a reason for that .
People who support the likes of Glenn Beck are missing certain brain functions which the rest of the human race comes equipped with .
They 're not as evolved .
Their frontal lobes are damaged or mal-formed or just did n't quite grow enough .
You could no more expect a monkey or a dog to understand these principles.Sorry .
Now stop talking .
You 're showing your evolutionary disadvantage to the humans.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds?
The Rightwing are showing the cracks in their logic by asking this same question in so many varying ways.
"How would you feel if this was your Mother, or your Child or YOU?
"Linus Torvalds and my mother, etc., don't richly deserve the ironic statement being made through such a gag.
It's called, "Getting a taste of your own medicine.
"  If we wanted to give Linus Torvalds a taste of his own medicine, we'd have to write some revolutionary software and give it away to him for free.
If we wanted to give my mother a taste of her own medicine, we'd have to give her some delicious home-made chocolate chip cookies.Do you see how this works?No.
You don't.
And there's a reason for that.
People who support the likes of Glenn Beck are missing certain brain functions which the rest of the human race comes equipped with.
They're not as evolved.
Their frontal lobes are damaged or mal-formed or just didn't quite grow enough.
You could no more expect a monkey or a dog to understand these principles.Sorry.
Now stop talking.
You're showing your evolutionary disadvantage to the humans.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200</id>
	<title>"Beck didn't see the humour"</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257871380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there is none.  Quit confounding parody and satire with humour.  Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is none .
Quit confounding parody and satire with humour .
Both are often very unfunny ( which is not to say they should not be protected : they should ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is none.
Quit confounding parody and satire with humour.
Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048008</id>
	<title>Re:Who the fuck is Glenn Beck...</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1257877680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/SFW\_Porn" title="encycloped...matica.com">http://encyclopediadramatica.com/SFW\_Porn</a> [encycloped...matica.com] is an example of SFW porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //encyclopediadramatica.com/SFW \ _Porn [ encycloped...matica.com ] is an example of SFW porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://encyclopediadramatica.com/SFW\_Porn [encycloped...matica.com] is an example of SFW porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048326</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YoudidyourMomnine-times.com is still available!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YoudidyourMomnine-times.com is still available !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YoudidyourMomnine-times.com is still available!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046838</id>
	<title>Re:Precident-setting?</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1257873840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to. Well done.</p></div><p>The precedent was set several times more than a decade ago. Persons tagged as major spammers and usenet kooks were parodied mercilessly by the renegade white hat group SP(UTU)M and others. If and when they ceased being a problem they were removed from public listings of problem makers, parody and satire materials removed, and a public announement to these ends and acceptance of their agreement (we never made it a 'surrender') was made. The result was just as you said. In one case a group hijacking a newsgroup for warez use was given their own clear channel, in another a person ceased using a spambot, and both changed sides, publicly crediting the way the end of hostilities was handled.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure 's name , while gracefully ending the joke when it 's done what it 's supposed to .
Well done.The precedent was set several times more than a decade ago .
Persons tagged as major spammers and usenet kooks were parodied mercilessly by the renegade white hat group SP ( UTU ) M and others .
If and when they ceased being a problem they were removed from public listings of problem makers , parody and satire materials removed , and a public announement to these ends and acceptance of their agreement ( we never made it a 'surrender ' ) was made .
The result was just as you said .
In one case a group hijacking a newsgroup for warez use was given their own clear channel , in another a person ceased using a spambot , and both changed sides , publicly crediting the way the end of hostilities was handled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to.
Well done.The precedent was set several times more than a decade ago.
Persons tagged as major spammers and usenet kooks were parodied mercilessly by the renegade white hat group SP(UTU)M and others.
If and when they ceased being a problem they were removed from public listings of problem makers, parody and satire materials removed, and a public announement to these ends and acceptance of their agreement (we never made it a 'surrender') was made.
The result was just as you said.
In one case a group hijacking a newsgroup for warez use was given their own clear channel, in another a person ceased using a spambot, and both changed sides, publicly crediting the way the end of hostilities was handled.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045830</id>
	<title>eat my shorts slashdot !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257869880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat my shorts slashdot !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046158</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glenn Beck is a "talking head" on Fox News which many feel leans far to the right (Republican) side.</p><p>He often uses phrases like the one posted in the snippet on the main page, "We're not accusing [NAME] of [RANDOM NEGATIVE RUMOR] &mdash; in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Why won't he deny that he [RANDOM NEGATIVE RUMOR]?"</p><p>He tries to play it off as not having an opinion while trying to manipulate a lot of the gullible people that don't know to take what he says with a grain of salt.</p><p>Beck didn't really rape and murder someone in 1990 (..or did he? he hasn't denied it yet), and someone made a satirical website showing just how ridiculous it is when Beck does that and turned it around on him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck is a " talking head " on Fox News which many feel leans far to the right ( Republican ) side.He often uses phrases like the one posted in the snippet on the main page , " We 're not accusing [ NAME ] of [ RANDOM NEGATIVE RUMOR ]    in fact , we think he did n't !
But we ca n't help but wonder ... Why wo n't he deny that he [ RANDOM NEGATIVE RUMOR ] ?
" He tries to play it off as not having an opinion while trying to manipulate a lot of the gullible people that do n't know to take what he says with a grain of salt.Beck did n't really rape and murder someone in 1990 ( ..or did he ?
he has n't denied it yet ) , and someone made a satirical website showing just how ridiculous it is when Beck does that and turned it around on him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck is a "talking head" on Fox News which many feel leans far to the right (Republican) side.He often uses phrases like the one posted in the snippet on the main page, "We're not accusing [NAME] of [RANDOM NEGATIVE RUMOR] — in fact, we think he didn't!
But we can't help but wonder ... Why won't he deny that he [RANDOM NEGATIVE RUMOR]?
"He tries to play it off as not having an opinion while trying to manipulate a lot of the gullible people that don't know to take what he says with a grain of salt.Beck didn't really rape and murder someone in 1990 (..or did he?
he hasn't denied it yet), and someone made a satirical website showing just how ridiculous it is when Beck does that and turned it around on him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1257874440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Canadian, I don't really get the reference, either. But as near as I can tell, from reading the posts on this thread, he's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts. He's the kind of person who'd go on the radio saying something like "I'm not saying Tony Blair is a sheep-shagger, but why hasn't he denied calling the vet to his home under 'suspicious' circumstances last Tuesday at 3am?" As a rational thinker, you know that he's just spewing BS, but you're forgetting that Beck's audience is largely American. They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea. ^.~</p><p>It reminds me of McCarthyism... Joe McCarthy used to ask people pointed questions that included veiled accusations phrased as statement of fact. "Tell me, Inda, Why do you hate America?". Not "do you hate America"... in the phrasing of the question it's assumed that you hate America, and he's not asking you for a yes/no, he's asking for an explanation of why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Canadian , I do n't really get the reference , either .
But as near as I can tell , from reading the posts on this thread , he 's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts .
He 's the kind of person who 'd go on the radio saying something like " I 'm not saying Tony Blair is a sheep-shagger , but why has n't he denied calling the vet to his home under 'suspicious ' circumstances last Tuesday at 3am ?
" As a rational thinker , you know that he 's just spewing BS , but you 're forgetting that Beck 's audience is largely American .
They have n't demonstrated any rational thought , as a nation , since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea .
^ . ~ It reminds me of McCarthyism... Joe McCarthy used to ask people pointed questions that included veiled accusations phrased as statement of fact .
" Tell me , Inda , Why do you hate America ? " .
Not " do you hate America " ... in the phrasing of the question it 's assumed that you hate America , and he 's not asking you for a yes/no , he 's asking for an explanation of why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Canadian, I don't really get the reference, either.
But as near as I can tell, from reading the posts on this thread, he's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts.
He's the kind of person who'd go on the radio saying something like "I'm not saying Tony Blair is a sheep-shagger, but why hasn't he denied calling the vet to his home under 'suspicious' circumstances last Tuesday at 3am?
" As a rational thinker, you know that he's just spewing BS, but you're forgetting that Beck's audience is largely American.
They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea.
^.~It reminds me of McCarthyism... Joe McCarthy used to ask people pointed questions that included veiled accusations phrased as statement of fact.
"Tell me, Inda, Why do you hate America?".
Not "do you hate America"... in the phrasing of the question it's assumed that you hate America, and he's not asking you for a yes/no, he's asking for an explanation of why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn\_Beck" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn\_Beck</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.</p><p>Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?</p></div><p>Glen Beck is a radio talkshow host and a TV showhost on FOX News. He is very conservative and has been in the news for making some... missteps in his commentary that have made him come off as not extremely intelligent.

The allegations are a parody of his style of reporting, which follows a similar logic(Example: the president hasn't denied that he was born out of the us, so if it isn't true why hasn't he?).

So the point isn't to say if he actually did rape or murder anyone, but to draw attention to the flaw in his logic. Glen Beck just made it worse by drawing so much attention to the website and the entire story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn \ _Beck [ wikipedia.org ] And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip , which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans ? Glen Beck is a radio talkshow host and a TV showhost on FOX News .
He is very conservative and has been in the news for making some... missteps in his commentary that have made him come off as not extremely intelligent .
The allegations are a parody of his style of reporting , which follows a similar logic ( Example : the president has n't denied that he was born out of the us , so if it is n't true why has n't he ? ) .
So the point is n't to say if he actually did rape or murder anyone , but to draw attention to the flaw in his logic .
Glen Beck just made it worse by drawing so much attention to the website and the entire story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn\_Beck [wikipedia.org] And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?Glen Beck is a radio talkshow host and a TV showhost on FOX News.
He is very conservative and has been in the news for making some... missteps in his commentary that have made him come off as not extremely intelligent.
The allegations are a parody of his style of reporting, which follows a similar logic(Example: the president hasn't denied that he was born out of the us, so if it isn't true why hasn't he?).
So the point isn't to say if he actually did rape or murder anyone, but to draw attention to the flaw in his logic.
Glen Beck just made it worse by drawing so much attention to the website and the entire story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096</id>
	<title>Grow up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257874800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody needs to fucking grow up. If Democrats think they are better than Republicans, then they are just as dumb. You both suck. John Stewart and Glenn Beck are both rich douche-bags.</p><p>I for one am sick and tired of these playground antics. The US is on the verge of a major economic and political meltdown and all you political ass-bags can do is point fingers and call names.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody needs to fucking grow up .
If Democrats think they are better than Republicans , then they are just as dumb .
You both suck .
John Stewart and Glenn Beck are both rich douche-bags.I for one am sick and tired of these playground antics .
The US is on the verge of a major economic and political meltdown and all you political ass-bags can do is point fingers and call names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody needs to fucking grow up.
If Democrats think they are better than Republicans, then they are just as dumb.
You both suck.
John Stewart and Glenn Beck are both rich douche-bags.I for one am sick and tired of these playground antics.
The US is on the verge of a major economic and political meltdown and all you political ass-bags can do is point fingers and call names.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045920</id>
	<title>.. so he's not immune to his own riddicule :D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proves a nice point!<br>good news</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proves a nice point ! good news</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proves a nice point!good news</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046168</id>
	<title>Re:Let's take Beck out of the equation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show me one time that Rachel Maddow has forced someone to deny bogus and patently ridiculous allegations over and over again. Who else but Beck has repeated the Obama birth certificate lunacy for so long? No one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me one time that Rachel Maddow has forced someone to deny bogus and patently ridiculous allegations over and over again .
Who else but Beck has repeated the Obama birth certificate lunacy for so long ?
No one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me one time that Rachel Maddow has forced someone to deny bogus and patently ridiculous allegations over and over again.
Who else but Beck has repeated the Obama birth certificate lunacy for so long?
No one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052372</id>
	<title>Re:Grow up</title>
	<author>changa</author>
	<datestamp>1257851400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Commie.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Commie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053820</id>
	<title>Re:Would it be funny if...</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1257858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds?</p></div><p>Only if he didn't think it was funny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds ? Only if he did n't think it was funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds?Only if he didn't think it was funny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046658</id>
	<title>Re:"Beck didn't see the humour"</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1257873240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because there is none.  Quit confounding parody and satire with humour.  Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).</p></div><p>I think that to count as satire or parody it does have to be funny, otherwise it's pastiche, <em>reductio ad absurdam</em>, <em>tu quoque</em> or something like that. And I think that instance <em>was</em> funny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is none .
Quit confounding parody and satire with humour .
Both are often very unfunny ( which is not to say they should not be protected : they should ) .I think that to count as satire or parody it does have to be funny , otherwise it 's pastiche , reductio ad absurdam , tu quoque or something like that .
And I think that instance was funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is none.
Quit confounding parody and satire with humour.
Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).I think that to count as satire or parody it does have to be funny, otherwise it's pastiche, reductio ad absurdam, tu quoque or something like that.
And I think that instance was funny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047638</id>
	<title>Re:handing back the domain FAIL</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1257876540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I love Beck's stuff. He cracks me up and makes me think.</i></p><p>[Thinking is] what a great many people think they are doing when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.  ~William James</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love Beck 's stuff .
He cracks me up and makes me think .
[ Thinking is ] what a great many people think they are doing when they are merely rearranging their prejudices .
~ William James</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love Beck's stuff.
He cracks me up and makes me think.
[Thinking is] what a great many people think they are doing when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
~William James</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049588</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257883380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I applaud the ruling, I believe your example - specifically, the Obama birth certificate - is a red herring.</p><p>Lets look at this hypothetical situation.</p><p> <i>Big Company HR Dept: "Well, Mr. R2.0, we'd like to offer you a job here at Big Company.  If you accept, please send a copy of your college transcript along with your acceptance."<br>Me: "Why do you need that?"<br>BCHRD: "Just to verify you're a graduate of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain."<br>Me: "But I already said I was on my resume - I shouldn't have to produce a document."<br>BCHRD: "Well, it is a formality, as we're sure you did graduate, but we do need to verify it, as the position requires a bachelors degree."<br>Me: "I shouldn't have to prove anything - I already told you I have a degree  If you don't like that, ask my references.  You're making me jump through these hoops to prove this because you are prejudiced against people with decimal points in their names!" </i> </p><p>Now lets pause.  In the real world, the conversation would stop here, with "Sorry Mr. R2.0, we'll be withdrawing our offer."  But lets continue with the example.</p><p> <i>BCHRD: "We're sorry you believe that, but your situation is not unique.  We request, and generally receive, transcripts from ALL our applicants.  It has never been an issue before.  May we ask why you do not wish to provide one?  It's really a very simple process."<br>Me: "But it's unnecessary.  I've stated I have a degree, my references have confirmed it, and continuing to ask me can only eb explained by your punctuation bias."<br>BCHRD: "Okaaaayyy.  I'll need to talk to my superiors"</i> </p><p>A few weeks pass.</p><p> <i>BCHRD: "Well, I've heard back from my supervisors.  Most are willing to accept your word; some even stated that they don't care if you don't have a degree, your resume is so impressive.  But there is a very staunch group that takes the requirements very seriously, and are uncomfortable with your refusal to provide the documentation.  I'll admit these people are NOT in favor of hiring you, that some of them unfortunately seem to be prejudiced against the punctuation-enabled, but the fact remains that the rules are very clear, and it would take 3/4 off all the company divisions to agree to change them."<br>Me: "See, I told you bias was the only reason for this!  But in the spirit of cooperation, I'll send the appropriate documents". </i> </p><p>Couple of days pass.</p><p> <i>BCHRD: "Mr. R2.0, we've received the scan of your document, and have some questions."<br>Me: "What now - I thought this was over."<br>BCHRD: "The problem is with the fact that you sent a scan of the document, and not an original."<br>Me: "So - isn't that good enough for you?"<br>BCHRD: "Normally it would be, but we have some problems.  First, due to your previous objections to forwarding the document, some of the supervisors are INSISTING that a hard copy be produced.  Second, we have some graduates of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain, and they state that the document doesn't look exactly like theirs.  And finally, you scanned a copy of your course schedule and credits earned.  While it contains much of the same information, it is NOT a transcript, and does NOT say if you actually received a degree."<br>Me: "This is punctuationism!  That's a private document - I'm not going to just hand it over!  As far as I'm concerned, I've complied, and I'm showing up to work in January regardless of what you think your policy says.  But again, to show how reasonable I am, I'll allow one or two of your supervisors to examine the original."</i> </p><p>More time.</p><p> <i>Me: "See, it's been examined and they say everything is OK."<br>BCHRD: "Not exactly.  The 2 supervisors who examined the documents happened to be very suportive of your employment hers, and all they will say is that the document is genuine.  When asked about specific characteristics, they generally reflected that the questioner must be biased because they were questioning the examiner's motives."<br>Me: "Well, here's the deal.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I applaud the ruling , I believe your example - specifically , the Obama birth certificate - is a red herring.Lets look at this hypothetical situation .
Big Company HR Dept : " Well , Mr. R2.0 , we 'd like to offer you a job here at Big Company .
If you accept , please send a copy of your college transcript along with your acceptance .
" Me : " Why do you need that ?
" BCHRD : " Just to verify you 're a graduate of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain .
" Me : " But I already said I was on my resume - I should n't have to produce a document .
" BCHRD : " Well , it is a formality , as we 're sure you did graduate , but we do need to verify it , as the position requires a bachelors degree .
" Me : " I should n't have to prove anything - I already told you I have a degree If you do n't like that , ask my references .
You 're making me jump through these hoops to prove this because you are prejudiced against people with decimal points in their names !
" Now lets pause .
In the real world , the conversation would stop here , with " Sorry Mr. R2.0 , we 'll be withdrawing our offer .
" But lets continue with the example .
BCHRD : " We 're sorry you believe that , but your situation is not unique .
We request , and generally receive , transcripts from ALL our applicants .
It has never been an issue before .
May we ask why you do not wish to provide one ?
It 's really a very simple process .
" Me : " But it 's unnecessary .
I 've stated I have a degree , my references have confirmed it , and continuing to ask me can only eb explained by your punctuation bias .
" BCHRD : " Okaaaayyy .
I 'll need to talk to my superiors " A few weeks pass .
BCHRD : " Well , I 've heard back from my supervisors .
Most are willing to accept your word ; some even stated that they do n't care if you do n't have a degree , your resume is so impressive .
But there is a very staunch group that takes the requirements very seriously , and are uncomfortable with your refusal to provide the documentation .
I 'll admit these people are NOT in favor of hiring you , that some of them unfortunately seem to be prejudiced against the punctuation-enabled , but the fact remains that the rules are very clear , and it would take 3/4 off all the company divisions to agree to change them .
" Me : " See , I told you bias was the only reason for this !
But in the spirit of cooperation , I 'll send the appropriate documents " .
Couple of days pass .
BCHRD : " Mr. R2.0 , we 've received the scan of your document , and have some questions .
" Me : " What now - I thought this was over .
" BCHRD : " The problem is with the fact that you sent a scan of the document , and not an original .
" Me : " So - is n't that good enough for you ?
" BCHRD : " Normally it would be , but we have some problems .
First , due to your previous objections to forwarding the document , some of the supervisors are INSISTING that a hard copy be produced .
Second , we have some graduates of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain , and they state that the document does n't look exactly like theirs .
And finally , you scanned a copy of your course schedule and credits earned .
While it contains much of the same information , it is NOT a transcript , and does NOT say if you actually received a degree .
" Me : " This is punctuationism !
That 's a private document - I 'm not going to just hand it over !
As far as I 'm concerned , I 've complied , and I 'm showing up to work in January regardless of what you think your policy says .
But again , to show how reasonable I am , I 'll allow one or two of your supervisors to examine the original .
" More time .
Me : " See , it 's been examined and they say everything is OK. " BCHRD : " Not exactly .
The 2 supervisors who examined the documents happened to be very suportive of your employment hers , and all they will say is that the document is genuine .
When asked about specific characteristics , they generally reflected that the questioner must be biased because they were questioning the examiner 's motives .
" Me : " Well , here 's the deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I applaud the ruling, I believe your example - specifically, the Obama birth certificate - is a red herring.Lets look at this hypothetical situation.
Big Company HR Dept: "Well, Mr. R2.0, we'd like to offer you a job here at Big Company.
If you accept, please send a copy of your college transcript along with your acceptance.
"Me: "Why do you need that?
"BCHRD: "Just to verify you're a graduate of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain.
"Me: "But I already said I was on my resume - I shouldn't have to produce a document.
"BCHRD: "Well, it is a formality, as we're sure you did graduate, but we do need to verify it, as the position requires a bachelors degree.
"Me: "I shouldn't have to prove anything - I already told you I have a degree  If you don't like that, ask my references.
You're making me jump through these hoops to prove this because you are prejudiced against people with decimal points in their names!
"  Now lets pause.
In the real world, the conversation would stop here, with "Sorry Mr. R2.0, we'll be withdrawing our offer.
"  But lets continue with the example.
BCHRD: "We're sorry you believe that, but your situation is not unique.
We request, and generally receive, transcripts from ALL our applicants.
It has never been an issue before.
May we ask why you do not wish to provide one?
It's really a very simple process.
"Me: "But it's unnecessary.
I've stated I have a degree, my references have confirmed it, and continuing to ask me can only eb explained by your punctuation bias.
"BCHRD: "Okaaaayyy.
I'll need to talk to my superiors" A few weeks pass.
BCHRD: "Well, I've heard back from my supervisors.
Most are willing to accept your word; some even stated that they don't care if you don't have a degree, your resume is so impressive.
But there is a very staunch group that takes the requirements very seriously, and are uncomfortable with your refusal to provide the documentation.
I'll admit these people are NOT in favor of hiring you, that some of them unfortunately seem to be prejudiced against the punctuation-enabled, but the fact remains that the rules are very clear, and it would take 3/4 off all the company divisions to agree to change them.
"Me: "See, I told you bias was the only reason for this!
But in the spirit of cooperation, I'll send the appropriate documents".
Couple of days pass.
BCHRD: "Mr. R2.0, we've received the scan of your document, and have some questions.
"Me: "What now - I thought this was over.
"BCHRD: "The problem is with the fact that you sent a scan of the document, and not an original.
"Me: "So - isn't that good enough for you?
"BCHRD: "Normally it would be, but we have some problems.
First, due to your previous objections to forwarding the document, some of the supervisors are INSISTING that a hard copy be produced.
Second, we have some graduates of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain, and they state that the document doesn't look exactly like theirs.
And finally, you scanned a copy of your course schedule and credits earned.
While it contains much of the same information, it is NOT a transcript, and does NOT say if you actually received a degree.
"Me: "This is punctuationism!
That's a private document - I'm not going to just hand it over!
As far as I'm concerned, I've complied, and I'm showing up to work in January regardless of what you think your policy says.
But again, to show how reasonable I am, I'll allow one or two of your supervisors to examine the original.
" More time.
Me: "See, it's been examined and they say everything is OK."BCHRD: "Not exactly.
The 2 supervisors who examined the documents happened to be very suportive of your employment hers, and all they will say is that the document is genuine.
When asked about specific characteristics, they generally reflected that the questioner must be biased because they were questioning the examiner's motives.
"Me: "Well, here's the deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050118</id>
	<title>That poor Girl</title>
	<author>ZHaDoom</author>
	<datestamp>1257885300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That poor Girl</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That poor Girl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That poor Girl</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049644</id>
	<title>The Best Part</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1257883680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion, the best part of the whole ordeal, was the fact that after the parody won, the owner handed the domain name over to Beck anyway.</p><p>This means Beck will be forced to:</p><p>1) Let the domain registration lapse, and be taken up by squatters who will use him good name in vain, or</p><p>2) Keep the registration paid, and forever, for the rest of Beck's life, have to PAY to keep DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com out of the hands of squatters.</p><p>HAHAHAHAH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , the best part of the whole ordeal , was the fact that after the parody won , the owner handed the domain name over to Beck anyway.This means Beck will be forced to : 1 ) Let the domain registration lapse , and be taken up by squatters who will use him good name in vain , or2 ) Keep the registration paid , and forever , for the rest of Beck 's life , have to PAY to keep DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com out of the hands of squatters.HAHAHAHAH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, the best part of the whole ordeal, was the fact that after the parody won, the owner handed the domain name over to Beck anyway.This means Beck will be forced to:1) Let the domain registration lapse, and be taken up by squatters who will use him good name in vain, or2) Keep the registration paid, and forever, for the rest of Beck's life, have to PAY to keep DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com out of the hands of squatters.HAHAHAHAH.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047388</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257875700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Glenn Beck has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who rapes and murders young girls... or young women... I don't know what it is.
</p><p>Now of course I'm not saying that he rapes people; I'm saying he has a problem.  He has a... this guy is, I believe, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI\_0Kt\_e3G" title="youtube.com">a rapist</a> [youtube.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Glenn Beck has exposed himself as a guy , over and over and over again , who rapes and murders young girls... or young women... I do n't know what it is .
Now of course I 'm not saying that he rapes people ; I 'm saying he has a problem .
He has a... this guy is , I believe , a rapist [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Glenn Beck has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who rapes and murders young girls... or young women... I don't know what it is.
Now of course I'm not saying that he rapes people; I'm saying he has a problem.
He has a... this guy is, I believe, a rapist [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045930</id>
	<title>This is an attack on the teabaggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's pretty clear that this is an attack on the teabaggers, which have the left terrified, particularly after our huge victory in NY-23. We're going to take back this country, you see, for FREEDOM. For INDIVIDUALISM. For NO BIG GOVERNMENT.</p><p>Yea, I know that you guys call us "teabaggers" meaning it to be a pejorative, but like the term "yankee", we've made TEABAGGER our word and we now use it with PRIDE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's pretty clear that this is an attack on the teabaggers , which have the left terrified , particularly after our huge victory in NY-23 .
We 're going to take back this country , you see , for FREEDOM .
For INDIVIDUALISM .
For NO BIG GOVERNMENT.Yea , I know that you guys call us " teabaggers " meaning it to be a pejorative , but like the term " yankee " , we 've made TEABAGGER our word and we now use it with PRIDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's pretty clear that this is an attack on the teabaggers, which have the left terrified, particularly after our huge victory in NY-23.
We're going to take back this country, you see, for FREEDOM.
For INDIVIDUALISM.
For NO BIG GOVERNMENT.Yea, I know that you guys call us "teabaggers" meaning it to be a pejorative, but like the term "yankee", we've made TEABAGGER our word and we now use it with PRIDE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055120</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Draconius42</author>
	<datestamp>1257866640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll. I don't think he really has a position."

A: He's been on the radio LONG before TV. Somehow people always overlook this and act like he came into being when he started on Fox News. Not really that important, but still.

B: You clearly never actually listen to him. He most certainly has a position that he believes in deeply, and isn't afraid to talk about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll .
I do n't think he really has a position .
" A : He 's been on the radio LONG before TV .
Somehow people always overlook this and act like he came into being when he started on Fox News .
Not really that important , but still .
B : You clearly never actually listen to him .
He most certainly has a position that he believes in deeply , and is n't afraid to talk about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll.
I don't think he really has a position.
"

A: He's been on the radio LONG before TV.
Somehow people always overlook this and act like he came into being when he started on Fox News.
Not really that important, but still.
B: You clearly never actually listen to him.
He most certainly has a position that he believes in deeply, and isn't afraid to talk about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047954</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine."</p></div><p>If the fairness doctrine is so evil, why do we lionize the journalists and TV anchors who had to operate under it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only scary development is the resurgent muttering , on the left , about the actually evil " fairness doctrine .
" If the fairness doctrine is so evil , why do we lionize the journalists and TV anchors who had to operate under it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine.
"If the fairness doctrine is so evil, why do we lionize the journalists and TV anchors who had to operate under it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053184</id>
	<title>In related news...</title>
	<author>sammydee</author>
	<datestamp>1257855360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news, victim in fatal car accident is tragically not Glenn Beck</p><p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident" title="theonion.com">http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident</a> [theonion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , victim in fatal car accident is tragically not Glenn Beckhttp : //www.theonion.com/content/video/victim \ _in \ _fatal \ _car \ _accident [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, victim in fatal car accident is tragically not Glenn Beckhttp://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047772</id>
	<title>Re:Who the fuck is Glenn Beck...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?</p></div><p>Explain what SFW porn is, please.</p></div><p> <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/SFW\_Porn" title="encycloped...matica.com" rel="nofollow">Here you go.</a> [encycloped...matica.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn ? Explain what SFW porn is , please .
Here you go .
[ encycloped...matica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?Explain what SFW porn is, please.
Here you go.
[encycloped...matica.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30056612</id>
	<title>Who the Rape'n'Fuck is Glenn Beck?</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1257878340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why should anyone care?<br>Seriously poor editing if the editor didn't predict that response.</p><p>OK, didn't take long to find out (Wikipedia): "Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American talk radio and television host, conservative political commentator, author, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... " total non-entity.<br>So, thanks to Slashdot's poor editorial standards, I've wasted about 3 minutes of my life (while, I must say, doing other more interesting things too). Thanks guys. Not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why should anyone care ? Seriously poor editing if the editor did n't predict that response.OK , did n't take long to find out ( Wikipedia ) : " Glenn Lee Beck ( born February 10 , 1964 ) is an American talk radio and television host , conservative political commentator , author , and ... " total non-entity.So , thanks to Slashdot 's poor editorial standards , I 've wasted about 3 minutes of my life ( while , I must say , doing other more interesting things too ) .
Thanks guys .
Not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why should anyone care?Seriously poor editing if the editor didn't predict that response.OK, didn't take long to find out (Wikipedia): "Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American talk radio and television host, conservative political commentator, author, and ... " total non-entity.So, thanks to Slashdot's poor editorial standards, I've wasted about 3 minutes of my life (while, I must say, doing other more interesting things too).
Thanks guys.
Not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051276</id>
	<title>Re:still a valid concern</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1257847080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations, as does any other public figure</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure being accused of being a rapist and murderer would have profound social and financial implications for anyone, public figure or not.  Glenn Beck didn't lose his job, as many people in with similar accusations have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations , as does any other public figureI 'm pretty sure being accused of being a rapist and murderer would have profound social and financial implications for anyone , public figure or not .
Glenn Beck did n't lose his job , as many people in with similar accusations have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations, as does any other public figureI'm pretty sure being accused of being a rapist and murderer would have profound social and financial implications for anyone, public figure or not.
Glenn Beck didn't lose his job, as many people in with similar accusations have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047408</id>
	<title>The domain creator won't mind...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if someone created a domain with their name inserted in the name of "www.Did{insertDomainCreatorNameHere}RapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com" instead right? The domain creator, I expect, wouldn't mind in the least right? I mean that would make him a hypocrite. So, say, if someone went and created a parody site on him then he'd be supportive? You know what, I think he would. Because he stood up for his right to make a parody site of Glenn Beck and I think the parody domain creator would be ecstatic to know a parody site of himself with a similar domain name and statements of his parody site could/should be put up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if someone created a domain with their name inserted in the name of " www.Did { insertDomainCreatorNameHere } RapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com " instead right ?
The domain creator , I expect , would n't mind in the least right ?
I mean that would make him a hypocrite .
So , say , if someone went and created a parody site on him then he 'd be supportive ?
You know what , I think he would .
Because he stood up for his right to make a parody site of Glenn Beck and I think the parody domain creator would be ecstatic to know a parody site of himself with a similar domain name and statements of his parody site could/should be put up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if someone created a domain with their name inserted in the name of "www.Did{insertDomainCreatorNameHere}RapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com" instead right?
The domain creator, I expect, wouldn't mind in the least right?
I mean that would make him a hypocrite.
So, say, if someone went and created a parody site on him then he'd be supportive?
You know what, I think he would.
Because he stood up for his right to make a parody site of Glenn Beck and I think the parody domain creator would be ecstatic to know a parody site of himself with a similar domain name and statements of his parody site could/should be put up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051430</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>jbeach</author>
	<datestamp>1257847560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that be doesn't even answer, implies that he at least doesn't have a problem with girls being raped in murdered. Or little boys. Or alien goatsucking fiends. Or alien goatsucking fiends being wrongly imprisoned for rape and murder that could just as easily have been committed by Glenn Beck.

Now of course I'm not saying that he did. But his silence on this important topic **and** alien goatsucking fiends...isn't that interesting? I'm just say that it's interesting, you know?

(I can has cable show now?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that be does n't even answer , implies that he at least does n't have a problem with girls being raped in murdered .
Or little boys .
Or alien goatsucking fiends .
Or alien goatsucking fiends being wrongly imprisoned for rape and murder that could just as easily have been committed by Glenn Beck .
Now of course I 'm not saying that he did .
But his silence on this important topic * * and * * alien goatsucking fiends...is n't that interesting ?
I 'm just say that it 's interesting , you know ?
( I can has cable show now ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that be doesn't even answer, implies that he at least doesn't have a problem with girls being raped in murdered.
Or little boys.
Or alien goatsucking fiends.
Or alien goatsucking fiends being wrongly imprisoned for rape and murder that could just as easily have been committed by Glenn Beck.
Now of course I'm not saying that he did.
But his silence on this important topic **and** alien goatsucking fiends...isn't that interesting?
I'm just say that it's interesting, you know?
(I can has cable show now?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051354</id>
	<title>SHOWING YOUR BIAS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you should just turn off the Glenn Beck show if it infuriates you so.<br>Nobody forces you to watch and absorb the information you receive from his show.<br>For that matter, I could easily argue that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has a rather strong lean towards a liberal agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you should just turn off the Glenn Beck show if it infuriates you so.Nobody forces you to watch and absorb the information you receive from his show.For that matter , I could easily argue that / .
has a rather strong lean towards a liberal agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you should just turn off the Glenn Beck show if it infuriates you so.Nobody forces you to watch and absorb the information you receive from his show.For that matter, I could easily argue that /.
has a rather strong lean towards a liberal agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047236</id>
	<title>Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Explain to me just how enabling the Patriot Act (Signed and not vetoed by Bush might I remind you) is NOT big government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain to me just how enabling the Patriot Act ( Signed and not vetoed by Bush might I remind you ) is NOT big government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain to me just how enabling the Patriot Act (Signed and not vetoed by Bush might I remind you) is NOT big government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30056364</id>
	<title>why</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1257875940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did the guy give Beck the domain? i'd have given it to some liberal shill somewhere, letting the domain taunt Beck for the rest of the contract. then let that asshat go buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did the guy give Beck the domain ?
i 'd have given it to some liberal shill somewhere , letting the domain taunt Beck for the rest of the contract .
then let that asshat go buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did the guy give Beck the domain?
i'd have given it to some liberal shill somewhere, letting the domain taunt Beck for the rest of the contract.
then let that asshat go buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908</id>
	<title>Who the fuck is Glenn Beck...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049368</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fact that he doesn't.</p><p>Beck is not a "birther" and has consistently ridiculed callers on his show who do try to bring it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fact that he does n't.Beck is not a " birther " and has consistently ridiculed callers on his show who do try to bring it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fact that he doesn't.Beck is not a "birther" and has consistently ridiculed callers on his show who do try to bring it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055810</id>
	<title>Re:Liberal free speech</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1257870960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>free speech? what do you mean?</p><p>i don't want the government to force Beck to shut up, i want him to shut up due to social pressure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>free speech ?
what do you mean ? i do n't want the government to force Beck to shut up , i want him to shut up due to social pressure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>free speech?
what do you mean?i don't want the government to force Beck to shut up, i want him to shut up due to social pressure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30057004</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>TeethWhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1257882240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...Glenn Beck has exposed himself...</p></div><p>
Couldn't resist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Glenn Beck has exposed himself.. . Could n't resist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Glenn Beck has exposed himself...
Couldn't resist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050068</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1257885060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ann Coulter looks mean.  She looks like she would hit you over the head with a bat, the snicker at you for being such a wimp.<br> <br>
Glenn Beck on the other hand looks like a big harmless teddy bear.  He's the guy you would take drinking and could always be relied on to do something goofy. Also he always sounds sincere, and I think he probably is......he's just braindead. Ann Coulter is scary. Glenn Beck is not. That's why Glenn Beck is more popular.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ann Coulter looks mean .
She looks like she would hit you over the head with a bat , the snicker at you for being such a wimp .
Glenn Beck on the other hand looks like a big harmless teddy bear .
He 's the guy you would take drinking and could always be relied on to do something goofy .
Also he always sounds sincere , and I think he probably is......he 's just braindead .
Ann Coulter is scary .
Glenn Beck is not .
That 's why Glenn Beck is more popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ann Coulter looks mean.
She looks like she would hit you over the head with a bat, the snicker at you for being such a wimp.
Glenn Beck on the other hand looks like a big harmless teddy bear.
He's the guy you would take drinking and could always be relied on to do something goofy.
Also he always sounds sincere, and I think he probably is......he's just braindead.
Ann Coulter is scary.
Glenn Beck is not.
That's why Glenn Beck is more popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046672</id>
	<title>Parody, satire or libel?</title>
	<author>Rastl</author>
	<datestamp>1257873300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that's what the case was about.  Mr. Beck and his attorneys thought the site was libelous, the creator thought it was parody/satire.  The judge sided with the creator.  I don't see where it was incorrect to bring about a suit and from all reports it was handled correctly and professionally.</p><p>The only 'big thing' is that it was a site about Glenn Beck.  Had it been someone less<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. contentious<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. then it probably wouldn't have been created/covered/known in the first place.</p><p>That's the price of being a public figure.  The bar for libel is higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's what the case was about .
Mr. Beck and his attorneys thought the site was libelous , the creator thought it was parody/satire .
The judge sided with the creator .
I do n't see where it was incorrect to bring about a suit and from all reports it was handled correctly and professionally.The only 'big thing ' is that it was a site about Glenn Beck .
Had it been someone less .. contentious .. then it probably would n't have been created/covered/known in the first place.That 's the price of being a public figure .
The bar for libel is higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's what the case was about.
Mr. Beck and his attorneys thought the site was libelous, the creator thought it was parody/satire.
The judge sided with the creator.
I don't see where it was incorrect to bring about a suit and from all reports it was handled correctly and professionally.The only 'big thing' is that it was a site about Glenn Beck.
Had it been someone less .. contentious .. then it probably wouldn't have been created/covered/known in the first place.That's the price of being a public figure.
The bar for libel is higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046138</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a loud-mouthed right-wing pundit. The "did he rape and murder a young girl in 1990" is just what the summary says it is. It's a parody of the kind of straw man arguments he uses all the time in his shows-- "Now I don't think soandso did suchandsuch, but the troubling question is, why haven't they denied it?"</p><p>Now I don't think Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. That would be a horrible thing, and I'd hate to believe that of a pillar of the community such as Mr. Beck. And yet, the troubling question remains: did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? And if not, why doesn't he deny it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a loud-mouthed right-wing pundit .
The " did he rape and murder a young girl in 1990 " is just what the summary says it is .
It 's a parody of the kind of straw man arguments he uses all the time in his shows-- " Now I do n't think soandso did suchandsuch , but the troubling question is , why have n't they denied it ?
" Now I do n't think Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 .
That would be a horrible thing , and I 'd hate to believe that of a pillar of the community such as Mr. Beck. And yet , the troubling question remains : did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990 ?
And if not , why does n't he deny it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a loud-mouthed right-wing pundit.
The "did he rape and murder a young girl in 1990" is just what the summary says it is.
It's a parody of the kind of straw man arguments he uses all the time in his shows-- "Now I don't think soandso did suchandsuch, but the troubling question is, why haven't they denied it?
"Now I don't think Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
That would be a horrible thing, and I'd hate to believe that of a pillar of the community such as Mr. Beck. And yet, the troubling question remains: did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?
And if not, why doesn't he deny it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048870</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>L0rdJedi</author>
	<datestamp>1257880680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, pick an example that Beck rarely, if ever, talks about.  In the nearly one year that I've been watching Beck, he's talked about the "birther" movement maybe 3 times for a few minutes at a time.  Beck as well as Larry Elder, Rush Limbaugh, and the other commentator's, could care less if the President was born in the US or not (at this point anyway).  Are there questions surrounding the "certificate of birth"?  Yes, especially since you can't even use that to get a passport.  Has Beck spent a significant amount of time talking about it?  No.  His focus is on this administration and its current actions, just like Slashdot's focus was on GW Bush and his actions during that administration, but now falls largely silent on the Obama administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , pick an example that Beck rarely , if ever , talks about .
In the nearly one year that I 've been watching Beck , he 's talked about the " birther " movement maybe 3 times for a few minutes at a time .
Beck as well as Larry Elder , Rush Limbaugh , and the other commentator 's , could care less if the President was born in the US or not ( at this point anyway ) .
Are there questions surrounding the " certificate of birth " ?
Yes , especially since you ca n't even use that to get a passport .
Has Beck spent a significant amount of time talking about it ?
No. His focus is on this administration and its current actions , just like Slashdot 's focus was on GW Bush and his actions during that administration , but now falls largely silent on the Obama administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, pick an example that Beck rarely, if ever, talks about.
In the nearly one year that I've been watching Beck, he's talked about the "birther" movement maybe 3 times for a few minutes at a time.
Beck as well as Larry Elder, Rush Limbaugh, and the other commentator's, could care less if the President was born in the US or not (at this point anyway).
Are there questions surrounding the "certificate of birth"?
Yes, especially since you can't even use that to get a passport.
Has Beck spent a significant amount of time talking about it?
No.  His focus is on this administration and its current actions, just like Slashdot's focus was on GW Bush and his actions during that administration, but now falls largely silent on the Obama administration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048052</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)</p></div><p>Although I don't think she denies it, I find it very hard to believe that Ann Coulter is a transsexual.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter , because she does the same shit .
Unfortunately it did n't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual .
) Although I do n't think she denies it , I find it very hard to believe that Ann Coulter is a transsexual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit.
Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.
)Although I don't think she denies it, I find it very hard to believe that Ann Coulter is a transsexual.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048152</id>
	<title>Obligitary XKCD</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1257878100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/641/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/641/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>Its so true. It reinforces my mantra: "Never trust anyone". [tips tinfoil hat]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/641/ [ xkcd.com ] Its so true .
It reinforces my mantra : " Never trust anyone " .
[ tips tinfoil hat ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/641/ [xkcd.com]Its so true.
It reinforces my mantra: "Never trust anyone".
[tips tinfoil hat]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049700</id>
	<title>I'm not saying it is or isn't taken, but...</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1257883860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?</i></p><p>I'm not saying it is or isn't taken, I'm just saying that a lot of Americans are interested in this question, and somebody needs to ask it.</p><p>Oh, I know, some of you are saying "Hey, why not just use nslookup?" Did you know that's part of the "BIND" -- now there's a scary name if there ever was one -- package from <em>Berkeley</em>? Have you ever thought about what the "N" and the "S" stand for? Did you that there's a magazine called "New Socialist" -- and they're now online?</p><p>Don't you think this is all pretty interesting?</p><p>Oh, and whether or not didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com is taken<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... <a href="http://gb1990.com/" title="gb1990.com">gb1990.com</a> [gb1990.com] is. In fact, they're carrying -- and I know this is a little spooky -- the same content that was at didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com. Now that's a pretty interesting fact right there, isn't it? I'm not saying what's there is or isn't "true", but I hope Mr. Beck comes clean about these charges, because if he's innocent, we need him without this cloud over his head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken ? I 'm not saying it is or is n't taken , I 'm just saying that a lot of Americans are interested in this question , and somebody needs to ask it.Oh , I know , some of you are saying " Hey , why not just use nslookup ?
" Did you know that 's part of the " BIND " -- now there 's a scary name if there ever was one -- package from Berkeley ?
Have you ever thought about what the " N " and the " S " stand for ?
Did you that there 's a magazine called " New Socialist " -- and they 're now online ? Do n't you think this is all pretty interesting ? Oh , and whether or not didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com is taken .... gb1990.com [ gb1990.com ] is .
In fact , they 're carrying -- and I know this is a little spooky -- the same content that was at didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com .
Now that 's a pretty interesting fact right there , is n't it ?
I 'm not saying what 's there is or is n't " true " , but I hope Mr. Beck comes clean about these charges , because if he 's innocent , we need him without this cloud over his head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?I'm not saying it is or isn't taken, I'm just saying that a lot of Americans are interested in this question, and somebody needs to ask it.Oh, I know, some of you are saying "Hey, why not just use nslookup?
" Did you know that's part of the "BIND" -- now there's a scary name if there ever was one -- package from Berkeley?
Have you ever thought about what the "N" and the "S" stand for?
Did you that there's a magazine called "New Socialist" -- and they're now online?Don't you think this is all pretty interesting?Oh, and whether or not didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com is taken .... gb1990.com [gb1990.com] is.
In fact, they're carrying -- and I know this is a little spooky -- the same content that was at didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com.
Now that's a pretty interesting fact right there, isn't it?
I'm not saying what's there is or isn't "true", but I hope Mr. Beck comes clean about these charges, because if he's innocent, we need him without this cloud over his head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049898</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember when conservatism was serious?</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1257884640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not as simple as that.</p><p>See, the Republican party was pragmatic, and they saw that there were a lot of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons who voted on issues that they were passionate about.  Those issues ranged from racism (they were for it) to religion to tax relief, some of which were valid stances while others were issues that only brain-dead cackling circus buffoons cared about.  The Republicans mustered those brain-dead cackling circus buffoons into a voting block by promising them that once the Republicans got enough power, they would give the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons their due.</p><p>This worked as long as Republicans continued to win elections.  With their loss in 2006 and 2008, the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons have decided that they have had enough with the Republican party, who never really did anything to help the brain-dead cackling circus buffoon cause.  Right now they're disorganized, running around in brain-dead cackling circus buffoon packs lead by brain-dead cackling circus ringleaders like Glenn Beck, but eventually they'll consolidate into some kind of brain-dead cackling circus buffoon party and become a real political force that will stab the Republicans in the back.</p><p>There are plenty of normal, sane conservatives out there.  But as a party, they summoned the demon of brain-dead cackling circus buffoonism, and now they must pay the price for it.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.  The sword in this case just happens to be a bunch of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as simple as that.See , the Republican party was pragmatic , and they saw that there were a lot of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons who voted on issues that they were passionate about .
Those issues ranged from racism ( they were for it ) to religion to tax relief , some of which were valid stances while others were issues that only brain-dead cackling circus buffoons cared about .
The Republicans mustered those brain-dead cackling circus buffoons into a voting block by promising them that once the Republicans got enough power , they would give the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons their due.This worked as long as Republicans continued to win elections .
With their loss in 2006 and 2008 , the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons have decided that they have had enough with the Republican party , who never really did anything to help the brain-dead cackling circus buffoon cause .
Right now they 're disorganized , running around in brain-dead cackling circus buffoon packs lead by brain-dead cackling circus ringleaders like Glenn Beck , but eventually they 'll consolidate into some kind of brain-dead cackling circus buffoon party and become a real political force that will stab the Republicans in the back.There are plenty of normal , sane conservatives out there .
But as a party , they summoned the demon of brain-dead cackling circus buffoonism , and now they must pay the price for it .
Live by the sword , die by the sword .
The sword in this case just happens to be a bunch of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as simple as that.See, the Republican party was pragmatic, and they saw that there were a lot of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons who voted on issues that they were passionate about.
Those issues ranged from racism (they were for it) to religion to tax relief, some of which were valid stances while others were issues that only brain-dead cackling circus buffoons cared about.
The Republicans mustered those brain-dead cackling circus buffoons into a voting block by promising them that once the Republicans got enough power, they would give the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons their due.This worked as long as Republicans continued to win elections.
With their loss in 2006 and 2008, the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons have decided that they have had enough with the Republican party, who never really did anything to help the brain-dead cackling circus buffoon cause.
Right now they're disorganized, running around in brain-dead cackling circus buffoon packs lead by brain-dead cackling circus ringleaders like Glenn Beck, but eventually they'll consolidate into some kind of brain-dead cackling circus buffoon party and become a real political force that will stab the Republicans in the back.There are plenty of normal, sane conservatives out there.
But as a party, they summoned the demon of brain-dead cackling circus buffoonism, and now they must pay the price for it.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The sword in this case just happens to be a bunch of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046820</id>
	<title>Re:handing back the domain FAIL</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257873780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What? Someone modded you INSIGHTFUL? Ok its slashdot but still. Glenn Beck is evil? He must be destroyed?</p></div><p>I believe in people's right to free speech. That doesn't mean I believe in their right to be free from Consequences. Glenn Beck says things he knows are lies and deliberately uses logical fallacies in order to whip idiots up into a froth, with predictable negative consequences, solely in a [largely successful] bid for relevance and thus profit. You have a right to say what you like, not to be free from repercussions.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't fault the poster as much as the modders. Just a joke.</p></div><p>Perhaps I was modded up for saying that making a martyr of him would be a terrible thing. Or maybe it was someone who understands that the slashdot moderation system is broken, and thought I was funny but didn't want me to lose karma in the inevitable battle of moderators.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I love Beck's stuff. He cracks me up and makes me think.</p></div><p>It seems to me that any quality thought produced from listening to Beck is incidental, kind of like how the schematic for the circuit to practically produce A/C power appeared fully-formed in the mind of Nikola Tesla while reciting a poem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Someone modded you INSIGHTFUL ?
Ok its slashdot but still .
Glenn Beck is evil ?
He must be destroyed ? I believe in people 's right to free speech .
That does n't mean I believe in their right to be free from Consequences .
Glenn Beck says things he knows are lies and deliberately uses logical fallacies in order to whip idiots up into a froth , with predictable negative consequences , solely in a [ largely successful ] bid for relevance and thus profit .
You have a right to say what you like , not to be free from repercussions.I do n't fault the poster as much as the modders .
Just a joke.Perhaps I was modded up for saying that making a martyr of him would be a terrible thing .
Or maybe it was someone who understands that the slashdot moderation system is broken , and thought I was funny but did n't want me to lose karma in the inevitable battle of moderators.I love Beck 's stuff .
He cracks me up and makes me think.It seems to me that any quality thought produced from listening to Beck is incidental , kind of like how the schematic for the circuit to practically produce A/C power appeared fully-formed in the mind of Nikola Tesla while reciting a poem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Someone modded you INSIGHTFUL?
Ok its slashdot but still.
Glenn Beck is evil?
He must be destroyed?I believe in people's right to free speech.
That doesn't mean I believe in their right to be free from Consequences.
Glenn Beck says things he knows are lies and deliberately uses logical fallacies in order to whip idiots up into a froth, with predictable negative consequences, solely in a [largely successful] bid for relevance and thus profit.
You have a right to say what you like, not to be free from repercussions.I don't fault the poster as much as the modders.
Just a joke.Perhaps I was modded up for saying that making a martyr of him would be a terrible thing.
Or maybe it was someone who understands that the slashdot moderation system is broken, and thought I was funny but didn't want me to lose karma in the inevitable battle of moderators.I love Beck's stuff.
He cracks me up and makes me think.It seems to me that any quality thought produced from listening to Beck is incidental, kind of like how the schematic for the circuit to practically produce A/C power appeared fully-formed in the mind of Nikola Tesla while reciting a poem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049872</id>
	<title>Re:Not entirely true</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1257884520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the doctor who delivered Obama, and the newspaper that printed his birth announcement must be in on the scam? And the certificate that Hawaii issued was <i>the only official certificate</i> at the time. No controversy, just a bunch of hateful morons who can't stand the idea of a successful black man. Why would Obama even bother to speak to these wingers? That would just encourage them to waste more of his time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the doctor who delivered Obama , and the newspaper that printed his birth announcement must be in on the scam ?
And the certificate that Hawaii issued was the only official certificate at the time .
No controversy , just a bunch of hateful morons who ca n't stand the idea of a successful black man .
Why would Obama even bother to speak to these wingers ?
That would just encourage them to waste more of his time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the doctor who delivered Obama, and the newspaper that printed his birth announcement must be in on the scam?
And the certificate that Hawaii issued was the only official certificate at the time.
No controversy, just a bunch of hateful morons who can't stand the idea of a successful black man.
Why would Obama even bother to speak to these wingers?
That would just encourage them to waste more of his time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053066</id>
	<title>RE: born in Kenya</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257854580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course,"</p><p>But he hasn't really.</p><p>See, he hasn't shown a copy of his original birth certificate. He has released statement of birth which is different.</p><p>What I can't understand is that people don't acknowledge that he has NOT really released his a copy of his birth certificate! I read that the Hawaii hospital said the the original has been lost . So if that is so, officially say it! Tell us that Mr Obama's original Birth certificate ( you know, the same one you and me have with the doctors signature on it ) has been lost so we are issuing the statement of birth instead.</p><p>That's the crux of the argument. Obama's team has not released ( a copy ) of the original birth certificate.</p><p>Lets say I lease a car.  The leasing company says that I am not paying the correct monthly payments.  I ask for a copy of the original lease agreement that I signed ( for sake of argument let's say I've lost my copy ). What they send me is a statement of lease.  This is not the original document that I signed, but it outlines my lease.  Are these document the same?  I say no.</p><p>Weather the "statement of birth" is good enough is not the argument. The fact is that it is not the same as a copy of the original birth certificate is.  That's why the birth certificate issue won't go away for good.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" if he was born here , why does n't he prove it ?
Obama has , of course , " But he has n't really.See , he has n't shown a copy of his original birth certificate .
He has released statement of birth which is different.What I ca n't understand is that people do n't acknowledge that he has NOT really released his a copy of his birth certificate !
I read that the Hawaii hospital said the the original has been lost .
So if that is so , officially say it !
Tell us that Mr Obama 's original Birth certificate ( you know , the same one you and me have with the doctors signature on it ) has been lost so we are issuing the statement of birth instead.That 's the crux of the argument .
Obama 's team has not released ( a copy ) of the original birth certificate.Lets say I lease a car .
The leasing company says that I am not paying the correct monthly payments .
I ask for a copy of the original lease agreement that I signed ( for sake of argument let 's say I 've lost my copy ) .
What they send me is a statement of lease .
This is not the original document that I signed , but it outlines my lease .
Are these document the same ?
I say no.Weather the " statement of birth " is good enough is not the argument .
The fact is that it is not the same as a copy of the original birth certificate is .
That 's why the birth certificate issue wo n't go away for good .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it?
Obama has, of course,"But he hasn't really.See, he hasn't shown a copy of his original birth certificate.
He has released statement of birth which is different.What I can't understand is that people don't acknowledge that he has NOT really released his a copy of his birth certificate!
I read that the Hawaii hospital said the the original has been lost .
So if that is so, officially say it!
Tell us that Mr Obama's original Birth certificate ( you know, the same one you and me have with the doctors signature on it ) has been lost so we are issuing the statement of birth instead.That's the crux of the argument.
Obama's team has not released ( a copy ) of the original birth certificate.Lets say I lease a car.
The leasing company says that I am not paying the correct monthly payments.
I ask for a copy of the original lease agreement that I signed ( for sake of argument let's say I've lost my copy ).
What they send me is a statement of lease.
This is not the original document that I signed, but it outlines my lease.
Are these document the same?
I say no.Weather the "statement of birth" is good enough is not the argument.
The fact is that it is not the same as a copy of the original birth certificate is.
That's why the birth certificate issue won't go away for good.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</id>
	<title>Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-poke</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1257870840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "did he kill a girl" satire isn't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses (about, say, the Marxist leanings of numerous Obama appointees who<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... actually cite Marx, or Mao, or Chavez as heros, etc), because he trots out video tape to keep it topical. When satire - a la The Daily Show - is anchored to your target's actual utterances, foibles, gaffes, and poor judgement, it's a lot more potent.
<br> <br>
As for the "man, I sure hope I'm wrong on this" rhetorical technique: again, it's more effective when (as Beck has humorously done), he has a yes-the-White-House-Press-Office-knows-the-phone-number hot line, right to his studio, that he begs them to call, so that they can point out how the video taped comments of some of their idiots are wrong, or not meaningful. Obviously, the Whtie House doesn't want to take the bait, because then they'll have to actually talk about those idiots directly. But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news. Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.
<br> <br>
Yes, it's important that we preserve the rights to be satirical snots as needed, and at whomever we think needs to be on the receiving end. So this is a good development, no matter what you think about any of the parties involved or their positions. The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the <i>actually</i> evil "fairness doctrine."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " did he kill a girl " satire is n't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses ( about , say , the Marxist leanings of numerous Obama appointees who ... actually cite Marx , or Mao , or Chavez as heros , etc ) , because he trots out video tape to keep it topical .
When satire - a la The Daily Show - is anchored to your target 's actual utterances , foibles , gaffes , and poor judgement , it 's a lot more potent .
As for the " man , I sure hope I 'm wrong on this " rhetorical technique : again , it 's more effective when ( as Beck has humorously done ) , he has a yes-the-White-House-Press-Office-knows-the-phone-number hot line , right to his studio , that he begs them to call , so that they can point out how the video taped comments of some of their idiots are wrong , or not meaningful .
Obviously , the Whtie House does n't want to take the bait , because then they 'll have to actually talk about those idiots directly .
But you know he 's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot ( rather than him , you know , he 's " he that shall not be named " ) as being not actual news .
Which is funny , since it 's not positioned as such in the first place , any more than are , say , Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm .
Yes , it 's important that we preserve the rights to be satirical snots as needed , and at whomever we think needs to be on the receiving end .
So this is a good development , no matter what you think about any of the parties involved or their positions .
The only scary development is the resurgent muttering , on the left , about the actually evil " fairness doctrine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "did he kill a girl" satire isn't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses (about, say, the Marxist leanings of numerous Obama appointees who ... actually cite Marx, or Mao, or Chavez as heros, etc), because he trots out video tape to keep it topical.
When satire - a la The Daily Show - is anchored to your target's actual utterances, foibles, gaffes, and poor judgement, it's a lot more potent.
As for the "man, I sure hope I'm wrong on this" rhetorical technique: again, it's more effective when (as Beck has humorously done), he has a yes-the-White-House-Press-Office-knows-the-phone-number hot line, right to his studio, that he begs them to call, so that they can point out how the video taped comments of some of their idiots are wrong, or not meaningful.
Obviously, the Whtie House doesn't want to take the bait, because then they'll have to actually talk about those idiots directly.
But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news.
Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.
Yes, it's important that we preserve the rights to be satirical snots as needed, and at whomever we think needs to be on the receiving end.
So this is a good development, no matter what you think about any of the parties involved or their positions.
The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050972</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember when conservatism was serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257845820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cackling buffoons... oh you must be talking about ACORN, Code Pink, NOW crowd or SEIU, maybe PETA and hundreds other kook organizations... also known as the looney left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cackling buffoons... oh you must be talking about ACORN , Code Pink , NOW crowd or SEIU , maybe PETA and hundreds other kook organizations... also known as the looney left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cackling buffoons... oh you must be talking about ACORN, Code Pink, NOW crowd or SEIU, maybe PETA and hundreds other kook organizations... also known as the looney left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048096</id>
	<title>Not entirely true</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1257877980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What Obama has given was a "certification of live birth," not a "birth certificate." The controversy there is that they are not the same legal documents in Hawaii from that era, with the former being derived from the latter.</p><p>I'm not a birther, but it does unnerve me that Obama won't just come out with the full monty of official documents and say "please, now STFU." That sort of game, where you let hundreds of thousands of your citizens believe that you are quite literally legally unable to occupy your office is not the sort of game that a politician in such a powerful office should play.</p><p>I know the standard excuse for Obama not being 100\% open here is that he's just messing with paranoid lunatics. Even assuming that's true, that makes even less sense because paranoid lunatics are the last people you want believing you're an illegitimate leader presiding over an imploding economy. That's like poking a tiger at a zoo with a sharp stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What Obama has given was a " certification of live birth , " not a " birth certificate .
" The controversy there is that they are not the same legal documents in Hawaii from that era , with the former being derived from the latter.I 'm not a birther , but it does unnerve me that Obama wo n't just come out with the full monty of official documents and say " please , now STFU .
" That sort of game , where you let hundreds of thousands of your citizens believe that you are quite literally legally unable to occupy your office is not the sort of game that a politician in such a powerful office should play.I know the standard excuse for Obama not being 100 \ % open here is that he 's just messing with paranoid lunatics .
Even assuming that 's true , that makes even less sense because paranoid lunatics are the last people you want believing you 're an illegitimate leader presiding over an imploding economy .
That 's like poking a tiger at a zoo with a sharp stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Obama has given was a "certification of live birth," not a "birth certificate.
" The controversy there is that they are not the same legal documents in Hawaii from that era, with the former being derived from the latter.I'm not a birther, but it does unnerve me that Obama won't just come out with the full monty of official documents and say "please, now STFU.
" That sort of game, where you let hundreds of thousands of your citizens believe that you are quite literally legally unable to occupy your office is not the sort of game that a politician in such a powerful office should play.I know the standard excuse for Obama not being 100\% open here is that he's just messing with paranoid lunatics.
Even assuming that's true, that makes even less sense because paranoid lunatics are the last people you want believing you're an illegitimate leader presiding over an imploding economy.
That's like poking a tiger at a zoo with a sharp stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051274</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Canadian who occasionally watched CNN Headline News for, well, actual news, yes, I know who Glenn Beck is.  He's that [expletive deleted] dingbat who clogs the airwaves with his poorly-informed blowhard political commentary, along with that other [expletive deleted] of a similar vein, Nancy Grace, who does the same thing for the murder/kidnap/voyeurism-of-the-day event.  Time was, you could watch that channel any time of the day or night and within 30 minutes get a sense of the day's news from a U.S. perspective.  But Headline "News" is now a joke.  Worse, they repeat both of these shows more than once a day.  Headline News is bundled in the cable package I have, so I'm actually paying for this crap.</p><p>Having watched enough Glenn Beck to know his style and what he typically rants on about (it's kind of like watching a car crash scene -- hard not to look sometimes), I have to say that Jon Stewart parody was so hilarious I almost fell off my chair laughing.  For those Canadians who do know who Glenn Beck is, but tried to follow the U.S. link that other people cited and found they were blocked (darn licensing agreements), here's the equivalent link for the Nov. 5 episode on <a href="http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip230565" title="thecomedynetwork.ca" rel="nofollow">Comedy Central</a> [thecomedynetwork.ca], which distributes The Daily Show in Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Canadian who occasionally watched CNN Headline News for , well , actual news , yes , I know who Glenn Beck is .
He 's that [ expletive deleted ] dingbat who clogs the airwaves with his poorly-informed blowhard political commentary , along with that other [ expletive deleted ] of a similar vein , Nancy Grace , who does the same thing for the murder/kidnap/voyeurism-of-the-day event .
Time was , you could watch that channel any time of the day or night and within 30 minutes get a sense of the day 's news from a U.S. perspective. But Headline " News " is now a joke .
Worse , they repeat both of these shows more than once a day .
Headline News is bundled in the cable package I have , so I 'm actually paying for this crap.Having watched enough Glenn Beck to know his style and what he typically rants on about ( it 's kind of like watching a car crash scene -- hard not to look sometimes ) , I have to say that Jon Stewart parody was so hilarious I almost fell off my chair laughing .
For those Canadians who do know who Glenn Beck is , but tried to follow the U.S. link that other people cited and found they were blocked ( darn licensing agreements ) , here 's the equivalent link for the Nov. 5 episode on Comedy Central [ thecomedynetwork.ca ] , which distributes The Daily Show in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Canadian who occasionally watched CNN Headline News for, well, actual news, yes, I know who Glenn Beck is.
He's that [expletive deleted] dingbat who clogs the airwaves with his poorly-informed blowhard political commentary, along with that other [expletive deleted] of a similar vein, Nancy Grace, who does the same thing for the murder/kidnap/voyeurism-of-the-day event.
Time was, you could watch that channel any time of the day or night and within 30 minutes get a sense of the day's news from a U.S. perspective.  But Headline "News" is now a joke.
Worse, they repeat both of these shows more than once a day.
Headline News is bundled in the cable package I have, so I'm actually paying for this crap.Having watched enough Glenn Beck to know his style and what he typically rants on about (it's kind of like watching a car crash scene -- hard not to look sometimes), I have to say that Jon Stewart parody was so hilarious I almost fell off my chair laughing.
For those Canadians who do know who Glenn Beck is, but tried to follow the U.S. link that other people cited and found they were blocked (darn licensing agreements), here's the equivalent link for the Nov. 5 episode on Comedy Central [thecomedynetwork.ca], which distributes The Daily Show in Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1257871260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a parody of what he does when he reports "news". He makes ridiculous statements, but phrases them such that when people call him on his bullshit he can say "I'm just asking questions". He'll then badger people about neither confirming or denying his "questions" - and they won't confirm or deny them because the questions are not even wrong.</p><p>That's the point of this site - it's just asking a question, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Obviously he didn't, but why won't he confirm or deny it? That's interesting, isn't it?</p><p>The worst part is that he actually has a TV show on Fox News. If you look on YouTube, you can find some of his spiels. They're pretty horrible, and yet somehow Americans still watch him. He sounds like that crazy homeless dude on the corner, except he's wearing a suit and he's in a television studio.</p><p>(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a parody of what he does when he reports " news " .
He makes ridiculous statements , but phrases them such that when people call him on his bullshit he can say " I 'm just asking questions " .
He 'll then badger people about neither confirming or denying his " questions " - and they wo n't confirm or deny them because the questions are not even wrong.That 's the point of this site - it 's just asking a question , did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990 ?
Obviously he did n't , but why wo n't he confirm or deny it ?
That 's interesting , is n't it ? The worst part is that he actually has a TV show on Fox News .
If you look on YouTube , you can find some of his spiels .
They 're pretty horrible , and yet somehow Americans still watch him .
He sounds like that crazy homeless dude on the corner , except he 's wearing a suit and he 's in a television studio .
( this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter , because she does the same shit .
Unfortunately it did n't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a parody of what he does when he reports "news".
He makes ridiculous statements, but phrases them such that when people call him on his bullshit he can say "I'm just asking questions".
He'll then badger people about neither confirming or denying his "questions" - and they won't confirm or deny them because the questions are not even wrong.That's the point of this site - it's just asking a question, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?
Obviously he didn't, but why won't he confirm or deny it?
That's interesting, isn't it?The worst part is that he actually has a TV show on Fox News.
If you look on YouTube, you can find some of his spiels.
They're pretty horrible, and yet somehow Americans still watch him.
He sounds like that crazy homeless dude on the corner, except he's wearing a suit and he's in a television studio.
(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit.
Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050846</id>
	<title>Re:Precident-setting?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257845220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tiny detail: they handed control of "GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com" to Beck.</p><p>They immediately set up "<a href="http://didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com/" title="didglennbe...in1990.com" rel="nofollow">DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com</a> [didglennbe...in1990.com]" which is still up and running.</p><p>I for one think the whole deal hilarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tiny detail : they handed control of " GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com " to Beck.They immediately set up " DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com [ didglennbe...in1990.com ] " which is still up and running.I for one think the whole deal hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tiny detail: they handed control of "GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com" to Beck.They immediately set up "DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com [didglennbe...in1990.com]" which is still up and running.I for one think the whole deal hilarious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047302</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that's just not true. I've heard Beck regularly refute the Kenya (birther) claims, defending the President's US citizenship.</p><p>He doesn't agree with Obama on policy issues, but he doesn't tolerate ignorance like this.</p><p>He gets stereotyped as someone who engages in tactics like asking people to refute baseless accusations, but he's always got video/audio clips to back up his claims, which is more than can be said for the satirical URL.</p><p>Case in point. Van Jones was on tape saying he was a marxist and a radical revolutionary -- it's an indisputable fact. Beck asked him to refute it if he had ever changed his mind. It was a relevant question because unless he had changed his mind, we had a marxist in the whitehouse. He never denied the claims, and instead resigned.</p><p>Using someone's own words as the basis of an accusation is very different from what Beck is being accused of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that 's just not true .
I 've heard Beck regularly refute the Kenya ( birther ) claims , defending the President 's US citizenship.He does n't agree with Obama on policy issues , but he does n't tolerate ignorance like this.He gets stereotyped as someone who engages in tactics like asking people to refute baseless accusations , but he 's always got video/audio clips to back up his claims , which is more than can be said for the satirical URL.Case in point .
Van Jones was on tape saying he was a marxist and a radical revolutionary -- it 's an indisputable fact .
Beck asked him to refute it if he had ever changed his mind .
It was a relevant question because unless he had changed his mind , we had a marxist in the whitehouse .
He never denied the claims , and instead resigned.Using someone 's own words as the basis of an accusation is very different from what Beck is being accused of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that's just not true.
I've heard Beck regularly refute the Kenya (birther) claims, defending the President's US citizenship.He doesn't agree with Obama on policy issues, but he doesn't tolerate ignorance like this.He gets stereotyped as someone who engages in tactics like asking people to refute baseless accusations, but he's always got video/audio clips to back up his claims, which is more than can be said for the satirical URL.Case in point.
Van Jones was on tape saying he was a marxist and a radical revolutionary -- it's an indisputable fact.
Beck asked him to refute it if he had ever changed his mind.
It was a relevant question because unless he had changed his mind, we had a marxist in the whitehouse.
He never denied the claims, and instead resigned.Using someone's own words as the basis of an accusation is very different from what Beck is being accused of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046188</id>
	<title>My domains are safe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>BarackObamaHatesWhitePeople.com and ObamaEatsBabies.com are safe!</htmltext>
<tokenext>BarackObamaHatesWhitePeople.com and ObamaEatsBabies.com are safe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BarackObamaHatesWhitePeople.com and ObamaEatsBabies.com are safe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046470</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1257872520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And why does he keep avoiding the issue?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why does he keep avoiding the issue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why does he keep avoiding the issue?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047898</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>spydabyte</author>
	<datestamp>1257877380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.</p></div><p>That's his job. That's all that FOX news does. That's what most "news media" does these days. Sadly, they use their skills at the detriment to us all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.That 's his job .
That 's all that FOX news does .
That 's what most " news media " does these days .
Sadly , they use their skills at the detriment to us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.That's his job.
That's all that FOX news does.
That's what most "news media" does these days.
Sadly, they use their skills at the detriment to us all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30071766</id>
	<title>Re:Not entirely true</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1258037340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What Obama has given was a "certification of live birth," not a "birth certificate." The controversy there is that they are not the same legal documents in Hawaii from that era, with the former being derived from the latter.</p></div></blockquote><p>Huh?  When you ask for a "birth certificate" from the state of Hawaii, they are going to send you a COLB.  Now in Hawaii, they don't necessarily call it a birth certificate.  That's typical government stuff to name things by acronym and to name it differently than other states.  For example if you suspect a child is being abused, you call CPS in one state, DHS in another, DFCS in another etc.</p><p>There are actually 2 forms of birth certificates.  The COLB is the short form with just enough pertinent information.  The long form is more of a medical form with things like blood type, etc.</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm not a birther, but it does unnerve me that Obama won't just come out with the full monty of official documents and say "please, now STFU." That sort of game, where you let hundreds of thousands of your citizens believe that you are quite literally legally unable to occupy your office is not the sort of game that a politician in such a powerful office should play.</p></div></blockquote><p>He's already released the COLB on his website.  That's far more than enough.  As for not releasing the long form, would you want to release your medical records for the entire world to see?</p><p>If that wasn't enough for you, the State of Hawaii has repeatedly said he was born there.</p><blockquote><div><p>I know the standard excuse for Obama not being 100\% open here is that he's just messing with paranoid lunatics. Even assuming that's true, that makes even less sense because paranoid lunatics are the last people you want believing you're an illegitimate leader presiding over an imploding economy. That's like poking a tiger at a zoo with a sharp stick</p></div></blockquote><p>He's been more open than he needed to be.  And the State of Hawaii backs him up.  What more proof do you need?   At this point, it's not paranoid, it's more desperation, delusion, and blind ignorance of facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Obama has given was a " certification of live birth , " not a " birth certificate .
" The controversy there is that they are not the same legal documents in Hawaii from that era , with the former being derived from the latter.Huh ?
When you ask for a " birth certificate " from the state of Hawaii , they are going to send you a COLB .
Now in Hawaii , they do n't necessarily call it a birth certificate .
That 's typical government stuff to name things by acronym and to name it differently than other states .
For example if you suspect a child is being abused , you call CPS in one state , DHS in another , DFCS in another etc.There are actually 2 forms of birth certificates .
The COLB is the short form with just enough pertinent information .
The long form is more of a medical form with things like blood type , etc.I 'm not a birther , but it does unnerve me that Obama wo n't just come out with the full monty of official documents and say " please , now STFU .
" That sort of game , where you let hundreds of thousands of your citizens believe that you are quite literally legally unable to occupy your office is not the sort of game that a politician in such a powerful office should play.He 's already released the COLB on his website .
That 's far more than enough .
As for not releasing the long form , would you want to release your medical records for the entire world to see ? If that was n't enough for you , the State of Hawaii has repeatedly said he was born there.I know the standard excuse for Obama not being 100 \ % open here is that he 's just messing with paranoid lunatics .
Even assuming that 's true , that makes even less sense because paranoid lunatics are the last people you want believing you 're an illegitimate leader presiding over an imploding economy .
That 's like poking a tiger at a zoo with a sharp stickHe 's been more open than he needed to be .
And the State of Hawaii backs him up .
What more proof do you need ?
At this point , it 's not paranoid , it 's more desperation , delusion , and blind ignorance of facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Obama has given was a "certification of live birth," not a "birth certificate.
" The controversy there is that they are not the same legal documents in Hawaii from that era, with the former being derived from the latter.Huh?
When you ask for a "birth certificate" from the state of Hawaii, they are going to send you a COLB.
Now in Hawaii, they don't necessarily call it a birth certificate.
That's typical government stuff to name things by acronym and to name it differently than other states.
For example if you suspect a child is being abused, you call CPS in one state, DHS in another, DFCS in another etc.There are actually 2 forms of birth certificates.
The COLB is the short form with just enough pertinent information.
The long form is more of a medical form with things like blood type, etc.I'm not a birther, but it does unnerve me that Obama won't just come out with the full monty of official documents and say "please, now STFU.
" That sort of game, where you let hundreds of thousands of your citizens believe that you are quite literally legally unable to occupy your office is not the sort of game that a politician in such a powerful office should play.He's already released the COLB on his website.
That's far more than enough.
As for not releasing the long form, would you want to release your medical records for the entire world to see?If that wasn't enough for you, the State of Hawaii has repeatedly said he was born there.I know the standard excuse for Obama not being 100\% open here is that he's just messing with paranoid lunatics.
Even assuming that's true, that makes even less sense because paranoid lunatics are the last people you want believing you're an illegitimate leader presiding over an imploding economy.
That's like poking a tiger at a zoo with a sharp stickHe's been more open than he needed to be.
And the State of Hawaii backs him up.
What more proof do you need?
At this point, it's not paranoid, it's more desperation, delusion, and blind ignorance of facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055640</id>
	<title>Re:"Beck didn't see the humour"</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1257869940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, to prove that it isn't true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, he needs to show us the videotape from 1990. I mean, the entire year, every moment of his life. What other standard could demonstrate whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990? To determinde whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 we must have the tape, and the longer he withholds the tape, the more clear it becomes that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , to prove that it is n't true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 , he needs to show us the videotape from 1990 .
I mean , the entire year , every moment of his life .
What other standard could demonstrate whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 ?
To determinde whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 we must have the tape , and the longer he withholds the tape , the more clear it becomes that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, to prove that it isn't true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, he needs to show us the videotape from 1990.
I mean, the entire year, every moment of his life.
What other standard could demonstrate whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990?
To determinde whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 we must have the tape, and the longer he withholds the tape, the more clear it becomes that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048058</id>
	<title>Would it be funny if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds?
<br>
No matter what you think about Beck, is this really funny?  Maybe it's just a sick attack.  If it was Linus, there would be an uproar here against this site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds ?
No matter what you think about Beck , is this really funny ?
Maybe it 's just a sick attack .
If it was Linus , there would be an uproar here against this site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you still think it was funny if it was Linus Torvalds?
No matter what you think about Beck, is this really funny?
Maybe it's just a sick attack.
If it was Linus, there would be an uproar here against this site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046278</id>
	<title>Re:Let's take Beck out of the equation</title>
	<author>Capt James McCarthy</author>
	<datestamp>1257871680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's say its any other commentator, for example, Rachel Maddow. This doesn't seem right. The argument on here goes "Well, Glenn Beck uses the same tactics."</p><p>All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics.</p></div><p>That is because news does not inform, news generates profits now days. Having CNN/FOXNews/MSMBC/etc force feed people an opinion that is associated with a fact is irresponsible IMO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say its any other commentator , for example , Rachel Maddow .
This does n't seem right .
The argument on here goes " Well , Glenn Beck uses the same tactics .
" All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics.That is because news does not inform , news generates profits now days .
Having CNN/FOXNews/MSMBC/etc force feed people an opinion that is associated with a fact is irresponsible IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say its any other commentator, for example, Rachel Maddow.
This doesn't seem right.
The argument on here goes "Well, Glenn Beck uses the same tactics.
"All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics.That is because news does not inform, news generates profits now days.
Having CNN/FOXNews/MSMBC/etc force feed people an opinion that is associated with a fact is irresponsible IMO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046500</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1257872640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He is very conservative</p></div><p>Actually I think he considers himself Libertarian rather than conservative, although his leanings are conservative</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is very conservativeActually I think he considers himself Libertarian rather than conservative , although his leanings are conservative</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is very conservativeActually I think he considers himself Libertarian rather than conservative, although his leanings are conservative
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049764</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257884040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Glenn Beck is one of those conservative blowhards who show video and audios of people who associate themselves with the president saying things like "Chairman Mao is my favorite political leader" and whatnot and then asking why these people are in the White House.</p><p>It's sort of like making something up that's completely false then asking why, only he usually has 30 minutes of documented proof to back up his random often wild and ridiculous accusations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Glenn Beck is one of those conservative blowhards who show video and audios of people who associate themselves with the president saying things like " Chairman Mao is my favorite political leader " and whatnot and then asking why these people are in the White House.It 's sort of like making something up that 's completely false then asking why , only he usually has 30 minutes of documented proof to back up his random often wild and ridiculous accusations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Glenn Beck is one of those conservative blowhards who show video and audios of people who associate themselves with the president saying things like "Chairman Mao is my favorite political leader" and whatnot and then asking why these people are in the White House.It's sort of like making something up that's completely false then asking why, only he usually has 30 minutes of documented proof to back up his random often wild and ridiculous accusations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049260</id>
	<title>And Right Now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Glenn Beck is laughing his ass off in his trailer/hotel room/living roome/wherever over the fact that people are talking about him. The guy is not a dumb ass people. He may say things you don't agree with. He may act like a batshit insane asshat on public television. However, he is not stupid. You don't land your own show on a major network by being an infantile, drooling retard that is incapable of calculating your next move very carefully, with your own agenda in mind. Glenn Beck is a public player. He wheels and deals in attention. He garners attention from critics. He garners attention from cheerleaders. He garners attention from other pundits, political figures, and, yes, even you and your coworkers. That is what he does and he is very good at it.
<br> <br>
So right now, after using a very successful strategy to sell his name and make himself (?in)famous, he saw someone throw his own attention games in his direction. So he did what any good actor would do. He acted. He sniggered and, probably, would high five the owners of the original website in the end. He got the public spotlight on him while he raved and ranted and complained about how he is being unjustly prosecuted. He made it so his critics would say, "There, look, see, he can't take it either!"
<br> <br>
He made it so his cheerleaders would say, "There, see, the other side hates our beloved hero and won't do him justice!"
<br> <br>
And now, the name Glenn Beck is not only circulating through lunchrooms and classrooms, now it is circulating around the world. Now people on every continent will be able to say, "Glenn Beck...haven't I heard of him before?"
<br> <br>
Now Glenn Beck is laughing in his private chambers sniggering at what a good media whore he has become. Congratulations slashdot, you just sold your News for Nerds website as a medium by which someone can gain influence and fame be it for good or evil. Personally, the whole thing, including this story being here and ALL comments regarding it (mine included) is fucking disgusting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck is laughing his ass off in his trailer/hotel room/living roome/wherever over the fact that people are talking about him .
The guy is not a dumb ass people .
He may say things you do n't agree with .
He may act like a batshit insane asshat on public television .
However , he is not stupid .
You do n't land your own show on a major network by being an infantile , drooling retard that is incapable of calculating your next move very carefully , with your own agenda in mind .
Glenn Beck is a public player .
He wheels and deals in attention .
He garners attention from critics .
He garners attention from cheerleaders .
He garners attention from other pundits , political figures , and , yes , even you and your coworkers .
That is what he does and he is very good at it .
So right now , after using a very successful strategy to sell his name and make himself ( ? in ) famous , he saw someone throw his own attention games in his direction .
So he did what any good actor would do .
He acted .
He sniggered and , probably , would high five the owners of the original website in the end .
He got the public spotlight on him while he raved and ranted and complained about how he is being unjustly prosecuted .
He made it so his critics would say , " There , look , see , he ca n't take it either !
" He made it so his cheerleaders would say , " There , see , the other side hates our beloved hero and wo n't do him justice !
" And now , the name Glenn Beck is not only circulating through lunchrooms and classrooms , now it is circulating around the world .
Now people on every continent will be able to say , " Glenn Beck...have n't I heard of him before ?
" Now Glenn Beck is laughing in his private chambers sniggering at what a good media whore he has become .
Congratulations slashdot , you just sold your News for Nerds website as a medium by which someone can gain influence and fame be it for good or evil .
Personally , the whole thing , including this story being here and ALL comments regarding it ( mine included ) is fucking disgusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck is laughing his ass off in his trailer/hotel room/living roome/wherever over the fact that people are talking about him.
The guy is not a dumb ass people.
He may say things you don't agree with.
He may act like a batshit insane asshat on public television.
However, he is not stupid.
You don't land your own show on a major network by being an infantile, drooling retard that is incapable of calculating your next move very carefully, with your own agenda in mind.
Glenn Beck is a public player.
He wheels and deals in attention.
He garners attention from critics.
He garners attention from cheerleaders.
He garners attention from other pundits, political figures, and, yes, even you and your coworkers.
That is what he does and he is very good at it.
So right now, after using a very successful strategy to sell his name and make himself (?in)famous, he saw someone throw his own attention games in his direction.
So he did what any good actor would do.
He acted.
He sniggered and, probably, would high five the owners of the original website in the end.
He got the public spotlight on him while he raved and ranted and complained about how he is being unjustly prosecuted.
He made it so his critics would say, "There, look, see, he can't take it either!
"
 
He made it so his cheerleaders would say, "There, see, the other side hates our beloved hero and won't do him justice!
"
 
And now, the name Glenn Beck is not only circulating through lunchrooms and classrooms, now it is circulating around the world.
Now people on every continent will be able to say, "Glenn Beck...haven't I heard of him before?
"
 
Now Glenn Beck is laughing in his private chambers sniggering at what a good media whore he has become.
Congratulations slashdot, you just sold your News for Nerds website as a medium by which someone can gain influence and fame be it for good or evil.
Personally, the whole thing, including this story being here and ALL comments regarding it (mine included) is fucking disgusting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045970</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257870480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055342</id>
	<title>The "No Gimmicks" Morning Zoo Dude?</title>
	<author>VValdo</author>
	<datestamp>1257867900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>listen to the Glen Beck Program when it was on our local station but it went off the air for a couple of years.</i></p><p>Oh I know why you're confused.  You must be thinking of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJkxBLgd5Hs" title="youtube.com">this zany guy</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>W</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>listen to the Glen Beck Program when it was on our local station but it went off the air for a couple of years.Oh I know why you 're confused .
You must be thinking of this zany guy [ youtube.com ] .W</tokentext>
<sentencetext>listen to the Glen Beck Program when it was on our local station but it went off the air for a couple of years.Oh I know why you're confused.
You must be thinking of this zany guy [youtube.com].W</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049086</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257881340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing, you have absolutely no idea who the man is, nor ever heard a single word from his mouth yet just a hint of him being on the other political spectrum causes you to launch into an angry, hateful tirade. Step back and ask yourself, "Why do I have so much hatred for others who don't agree with me?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing , you have absolutely no idea who the man is , nor ever heard a single word from his mouth yet just a hint of him being on the other political spectrum causes you to launch into an angry , hateful tirade .
Step back and ask yourself , " Why do I have so much hatred for others who do n't agree with me ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing, you have absolutely no idea who the man is, nor ever heard a single word from his mouth yet just a hint of him being on the other political spectrum causes you to launch into an angry, hateful tirade.
Step back and ask yourself, "Why do I have so much hatred for others who don't agree with me?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047256</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shut up you Glenn Beck apologist cunt. Go suck on his dick. Fuckwad. Glenn Beck doesn't do satire. He's a fucking prick. A disgusting putrid slime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut up you Glenn Beck apologist cunt .
Go suck on his dick .
Fuckwad. Glenn Beck does n't do satire .
He 's a fucking prick .
A disgusting putrid slime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut up you Glenn Beck apologist cunt.
Go suck on his dick.
Fuckwad. Glenn Beck doesn't do satire.
He's a fucking prick.
A disgusting putrid slime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047570</id>
	<title>Re:handing back the domain FAIL</title>
	<author>BeansBaxter</author>
	<datestamp>1257876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe in people's right to free speech. That doesn't mean I believe in their right to be free from Consequences. Glenn Beck says things he knows are lies and deliberately uses logical fallacies in order to whip idiots up into a froth, with predictable negative consequences, solely in a [largely successful] bid for relevance and thus profit. You have a right to say what you like, not to be free from repercussions.</p></div><p>At what point was he free from consequences?  If anything I think he is much more exposed to consequences than any network news organization. I'd describe them exactly as you describe Beck.  I've never said they must be destroyed.  But I guess when the Bill of Rights gets in the way we'll lets just ignore it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe in people 's right to free speech .
That does n't mean I believe in their right to be free from Consequences .
Glenn Beck says things he knows are lies and deliberately uses logical fallacies in order to whip idiots up into a froth , with predictable negative consequences , solely in a [ largely successful ] bid for relevance and thus profit .
You have a right to say what you like , not to be free from repercussions.At what point was he free from consequences ?
If anything I think he is much more exposed to consequences than any network news organization .
I 'd describe them exactly as you describe Beck .
I 've never said they must be destroyed .
But I guess when the Bill of Rights gets in the way we 'll lets just ignore it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe in people's right to free speech.
That doesn't mean I believe in their right to be free from Consequences.
Glenn Beck says things he knows are lies and deliberately uses logical fallacies in order to whip idiots up into a froth, with predictable negative consequences, solely in a [largely successful] bid for relevance and thus profit.
You have a right to say what you like, not to be free from repercussions.At what point was he free from consequences?
If anything I think he is much more exposed to consequences than any network news organization.
I'd describe them exactly as you describe Beck.
I've never said they must be destroyed.
But I guess when the Bill of Rights gets in the way we'll lets just ignore it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046906</id>
	<title>Glen Beck's ratings</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1257874080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more people foam at the mouth yelling at beck who is himself foaming at the mouth the higher his ratings go.</p><p>The loss of the case will not make his ratings go down, it will make them go UP.</p><p>Beck is just depressing. Dennis Miller is MUCH more enjoyable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more people foam at the mouth yelling at beck who is himself foaming at the mouth the higher his ratings go.The loss of the case will not make his ratings go down , it will make them go UP.Beck is just depressing .
Dennis Miller is MUCH more enjoyable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more people foam at the mouth yelling at beck who is himself foaming at the mouth the higher his ratings go.The loss of the case will not make his ratings go down, it will make them go UP.Beck is just depressing.
Dennis Miller is MUCH more enjoyable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047242</id>
	<title>Re:handing back the domain FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They should have handed the domain to someone who could have done even more with it, say AdBusters. Glenn Beck is evil and must be <b>must be made fun of</b>...</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.  He's a buffoon who takes himself far too seriously, and manages to impress himself far too much with the strength of his own anger.  For a man like that, the most appropriate response is ridicule.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should have handed the domain to someone who could have done even more with it , say AdBusters .
Glenn Beck is evil and must be must be made fun of...There , fixed that for you .
He 's a buffoon who takes himself far too seriously , and manages to impress himself far too much with the strength of his own anger .
For a man like that , the most appropriate response is ridicule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should have handed the domain to someone who could have done even more with it, say AdBusters.
Glenn Beck is evil and must be must be made fun of...There, fixed that for you.
He's a buffoon who takes himself far too seriously, and manages to impress himself far too much with the strength of his own anger.
For a man like that, the most appropriate response is ridicule.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048452</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but you're forgetting that Beck's audience is largely American. They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea. ^.~.</p></div><p>As long as its not a Canadian audience eh? They havent demonstated any rational thought since<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well ever...</p><p>asshat!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but you 're forgetting that Beck 's audience is largely American .
They have n't demonstrated any rational thought , as a nation , since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea .
^ . ~ .As long as its not a Canadian audience eh ?
They havent demonstated any rational thought since ... well ever...asshat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but you're forgetting that Beck's audience is largely American.
They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea.
^.~.As long as its not a Canadian audience eh?
They havent demonstated any rational thought since ... well ever...asshat!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046534</id>
	<title>Re:"Beck didn't see the humour"</title>
	<author>Rhesusmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257872760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Glenn Beck freaked out at a behavior in others that could be called his trademark style.  Unless he's upset that they're moving in on his action, that's irony.  I laughed just reading the summary, who made you the arbiter of funny?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck freaked out at a behavior in others that could be called his trademark style .
Unless he 's upset that they 're moving in on his action , that 's irony .
I laughed just reading the summary , who made you the arbiter of funny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck freaked out at a behavior in others that could be called his trademark style.
Unless he's upset that they're moving in on his action, that's irony.
I laughed just reading the summary, who made you the arbiter of funny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047074</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1257874680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news. Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.</p></div><p>Well that's funny, because I was under the impression that those people's faces are featured prominently on Fox's broadcast advertisements for their quality NEWS.</p><p>-b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you know he 's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot ( rather than him , you know , he 's " he that shall not be named " ) as being not actual news .
Which is funny , since it 's not positioned as such in the first place , any more than are , say , Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.Well that 's funny , because I was under the impression that those people 's faces are featured prominently on Fox 's broadcast advertisements for their quality NEWS.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news.
Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.Well that's funny, because I was under the impression that those people's faces are featured prominently on Fox's broadcast advertisements for their quality NEWS.-b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck , to this day , repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya .
He asks , if he was born here , why does n't he prove it ?
Obama has , of course , but Beck acts as though he has n't .
So someone decided to apply Glen Beck 's own tactics against him , by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it?
Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't.
So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047740</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1257876840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm sure it is now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm sure it is now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm sure it is now</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049406</id>
	<title>Liberal free speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Liberals are all for free speech<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... until THEY'RE in change!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Liberals are all for free speech ... until THEY 'RE in change !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liberals are all for free speech ... until THEY'RE in change!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047188</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1257875100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident" title="theonion.com">
Victim in fatal car accident tragically not Glenn Beck</a> [theonion.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Victim in fatal car accident tragically not Glenn Beck [ theonion.com ] : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Victim in fatal car accident tragically not Glenn Beck [theonion.com] :-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048576</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember when conservatism was serious?</title>
	<author>AlamedaStone</author>
	<datestamp>1257879540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics? Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.</p></div><p>I don't, but I'm guessing the modern tactics are working better for them. I would be so relieved if we could get back into the land of legitimate debate and discourse in US politics, but I don't think it's in the cards for a while yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics ?
Hard to believe they once were n't just a bunch of brain-dead , cackling circus buffoons.I do n't , but I 'm guessing the modern tactics are working better for them .
I would be so relieved if we could get back into the land of legitimate debate and discourse in US politics , but I do n't think it 's in the cards for a while yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics?
Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.I don't, but I'm guessing the modern tactics are working better for them.
I would be so relieved if we could get back into the land of legitimate debate and discourse in US politics, but I don't think it's in the cards for a while yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047842</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1257877200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The "did he kill a girl" satire isn't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses.</p></div><p>Beck uses satire? Now that would be newsworthy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine."</p></div><p>What the fuck are you talking about? You know you shouldn't believe fairy tales or outright lies, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " did he kill a girl " satire is n't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses.Beck uses satire ?
Now that would be newsworthy.The only scary development is the resurgent muttering , on the left , about the actually evil " fairness doctrine .
" What the fuck are you talking about ?
You know you should n't believe fairy tales or outright lies , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "did he kill a girl" satire isn't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses.Beck uses satire?
Now that would be newsworthy.The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine.
"What the fuck are you talking about?
You know you shouldn't believe fairy tales or outright lies, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045866</id>
	<title>DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047456</id>
	<title>You can lie, as long as you call it "news"</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1257875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/" title="projectcensored.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/</a> [projectcensored.org] <p><div class="quote"><p>CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
<br>Title: "Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie"
<br>Author: Liane Casten </p><p>ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
<br>Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection"
<br>Author: Al Krebs </p><p>Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
<br>Student Researcher: Sara Brunner </p><p>In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.</p></div><p>By all rights, Beck - as an employee of Fox who was accusing somebody else of make false statements - should have been physically tossed from the courtroom (which, if justice was to be served, should have been on the 5th or higher floor).</p><p>IANAL, of course - but I would be remiss if I did not mention that I look upon anything that Fox says with a certain skepticism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ [ projectcensored.org ] CMW REPORT , Spring 2003 Title : " Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie " Author : Liane Casten ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION , March 7 , 2004 Title : " Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $ 24.3 Billion Fox Television ; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech , Whistle Blower Protection " Author : Al Krebs Faculty Evaluator : Liz Burch , Ph.D . Student Researcher : Sara Brunner In February 2003 , a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.By all rights , Beck - as an employee of Fox who was accusing somebody else of make false statements - should have been physically tossed from the courtroom ( which , if justice was to be served , should have been on the 5th or higher floor ) .IANAL , of course - but I would be remiss if I did not mention that I look upon anything that Fox says with a certain skepticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ [projectcensored.org] CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: "Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie"
Author: Liane Casten ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection"
Author: Al Krebs Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.By all rights, Beck - as an employee of Fox who was accusing somebody else of make false statements - should have been physically tossed from the courtroom (which, if justice was to be served, should have been on the 5th or higher floor).IANAL, of course - but I would be remiss if I did not mention that I look upon anything that Fox says with a certain skepticism.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047128</id>
	<title>Satire</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1257874860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still, it's comforting to know that satire &mdash; the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear &mdash; is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs.</p></div><p>Seems to me they fear guns, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , it 's comforting to know that satire    the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear    is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs.Seems to me they fear guns , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs.Seems to me they fear guns, too.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30056614</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he generates heat, pointless emotion, mindless easy outrage in service of a cause. of course, its all lies and smears, but what does that matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he generates heat , pointless emotion , mindless easy outrage in service of a cause .
of course , its all lies and smears , but what does that matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he generates heat, pointless emotion, mindless easy outrage in service of a cause.
of course, its all lies and smears, but what does that matter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053186</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Stele</author>
	<datestamp>1257855360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)</p></div><p>She isn't?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter , because she does the same shit .
Unfortunately it did n't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual .
) She is n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit.
Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.
)She isn't?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050892</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1257845400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Just because this is Glenn Beck, and there is almost a syndrome about the Beck/Limbaugh/Fox hatred going on right, doesn't take away from the vile level to which some people stoop to personally destroy someone.If this was: www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.Maybe I'm wrong, but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. After all, this isn't the Huffington Post.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because this is Glenn Beck , and there is almost a syndrome about the Beck/Limbaugh/Fox hatred going on right , does n't take away from the vile level to which some people stoop to personally destroy someone.If this was : www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.Maybe I 'm wrong , but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on / .
After all , this is n't the Huffington Post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because this is Glenn Beck, and there is almost a syndrome about the Beck/Limbaugh/Fox hatred going on right, doesn't take away from the vile level to which some people stoop to personally destroy someone.If this was: www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.Maybe I'm wrong, but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on /.
After all, this isn't the Huffington Post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047114</id>
	<title>When did Glen Beck start being conservative?</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1257874860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly I used to listen to the Glen Beck Program when it was on our local station but it went off the air for a couple of years.  Now that it's back, I'm puzzled about this show, which was then full of dick jokes and fake radio bits and phony phone calls has now become some sort of tongue-in-cheek conservative firebrand with two inconvenient books, tours, and an odd political movement.  Where did all the dick jokes go?</p><p>The jingle used to be the "Fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" in the dick-joke period.</p><p>Is Beck actually playing a joke on everyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly I used to listen to the Glen Beck Program when it was on our local station but it went off the air for a couple of years .
Now that it 's back , I 'm puzzled about this show , which was then full of dick jokes and fake radio bits and phony phone calls has now become some sort of tongue-in-cheek conservative firebrand with two inconvenient books , tours , and an odd political movement .
Where did all the dick jokes go ? The jingle used to be the " Fusion of entertainment and enlightenment " in the dick-joke period.Is Beck actually playing a joke on everyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly I used to listen to the Glen Beck Program when it was on our local station but it went off the air for a couple of years.
Now that it's back, I'm puzzled about this show, which was then full of dick jokes and fake radio bits and phony phone calls has now become some sort of tongue-in-cheek conservative firebrand with two inconvenient books, tours, and an odd political movement.
Where did all the dick jokes go?The jingle used to be the "Fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" in the dick-joke period.Is Beck actually playing a joke on everyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048000</id>
	<title>Bias?</title>
	<author>michaele777</author>
	<datestamp>1257877680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll consider this newsworthy when the originator does the same thing to someone who claims to be a democrat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll consider this newsworthy when the originator does the same thing to someone who claims to be a democrat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll consider this newsworthy when the originator does the same thing to someone who claims to be a democrat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046788</id>
	<title>Re:"Beck didn't see the humour"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257873660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Beck had to do to make this go away was prove he didn't kill and rape or rape then kill a girl in 1990, how hard is this to do? Just show us the proof. Show the death certificate that says you didn't rape her</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Beck had to do to make this go away was prove he did n't kill and rape or rape then kill a girl in 1990 , how hard is this to do ?
Just show us the proof .
Show the death certificate that says you did n't rape her</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Beck had to do to make this go away was prove he didn't kill and rape or rape then kill a girl in 1990, how hard is this to do?
Just show us the proof.
Show the death certificate that says you didn't rape her</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049836</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1257884340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news. Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.</p></div><p>The problem is that Beck's audience isn't smart enough to make that distinction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you know he 's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot ( rather than him , you know , he 's " he that shall not be named " ) as being not actual news .
Which is funny , since it 's not positioned as such in the first place , any more than are , say , Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.The problem is that Beck 's audience is n't smart enough to make that distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you know he's getting on their nerves when they refer to his time slot (rather than him, you know, he's "he that shall not be named") as being not actual news.
Which is funny, since it's not positioned as such in the first place, any more than are, say, Keith Olbermann or Diane Rehm.The problem is that Beck's audience isn't smart enough to make that distinction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050138</id>
	<title>Re:"Beck didn't see the humour"</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257885360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny</p></div></blockquote><p>The whole point of parody is to make it clear how absurd the thing being parodied really is. Satire and parody aren't very effective if they're <i>not</i> humorous in some way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is none .
Quit confounding parody and satire with humour .
Both are often very unfunnyThe whole point of parody is to make it clear how absurd the thing being parodied really is .
Satire and parody are n't very effective if they 're not humorous in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is none.
Quit confounding parody and satire with humour.
Both are often very unfunnyThe whole point of parody is to make it clear how absurd the thing being parodied really is.
Satire and parody aren't very effective if they're not humorous in some way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048862</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Maniacal</author>
	<datestamp>1257880620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though you're a Canadian you can still see Beck on YouTube or other sites and can form your own opinion.  What you've gathered from reading the posts in this thread is not correct.  Well, he is a conservative blowhard, but not really "ultra".  Beck wouldn't call Tony Blair a sheep-shagger unless he had video of Blair shagging sheep, audio of him saying he likes to shag sheep, or text written by him claiming his love for shagging sheep.  He doesn't make unfounded claims though he's been known to make a mountain out of a mole hill.  I like watching him and I like him calling people out and holding them responsible for their actions.  You just need to take him with a grain of salt and see past the emotion.</p><p>In America, we aren't expected to have to prove our innocence unless there's someone providing evidence to the contrary.  In this case there's not.  It's an unfounded rumor.  He doesn't need to deny it but he should do a better job of ignoring it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though you 're a Canadian you can still see Beck on YouTube or other sites and can form your own opinion .
What you 've gathered from reading the posts in this thread is not correct .
Well , he is a conservative blowhard , but not really " ultra " .
Beck would n't call Tony Blair a sheep-shagger unless he had video of Blair shagging sheep , audio of him saying he likes to shag sheep , or text written by him claiming his love for shagging sheep .
He does n't make unfounded claims though he 's been known to make a mountain out of a mole hill .
I like watching him and I like him calling people out and holding them responsible for their actions .
You just need to take him with a grain of salt and see past the emotion.In America , we are n't expected to have to prove our innocence unless there 's someone providing evidence to the contrary .
In this case there 's not .
It 's an unfounded rumor .
He does n't need to deny it but he should do a better job of ignoring it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though you're a Canadian you can still see Beck on YouTube or other sites and can form your own opinion.
What you've gathered from reading the posts in this thread is not correct.
Well, he is a conservative blowhard, but not really "ultra".
Beck wouldn't call Tony Blair a sheep-shagger unless he had video of Blair shagging sheep, audio of him saying he likes to shag sheep, or text written by him claiming his love for shagging sheep.
He doesn't make unfounded claims though he's been known to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
I like watching him and I like him calling people out and holding them responsible for their actions.
You just need to take him with a grain of salt and see past the emotion.In America, we aren't expected to have to prove our innocence unless there's someone providing evidence to the contrary.
In this case there's not.
It's an unfounded rumor.
He doesn't need to deny it but he should do a better job of ignoring it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30153056</id>
	<title>This</title>
	<author>dazaris</author>
	<datestamp>1257097500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck:<br><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident</a> [theonion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck : http : //www.theonion.com/content/video/victim \ _in \ _fatal \ _car \ _accident [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck:http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198</id>
	<title>Re:Who the fuck is Glenn Beck...</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1257871380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?</p></div><p>Explain what SFW porn is, please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn ? Explain what SFW porn is , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?Explain what SFW porn is, please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051978</id>
	<title>More Ravings From a Lunatic</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257849720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact is that Beck is just a loon.  Anyone who's read his book would know he's just a freak who disguises fear mongering as supposed "enlightenment".  Stirs up the fears of backward rednecks just to make a profit from them and now he's mad because someone pokes fun at him?  Sounds like justice to me.<br> <br>Of course, it'll all just be a conspiracy by evil commies to bring him down and only you can save him for $14.95.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is that Beck is just a loon .
Anyone who 's read his book would know he 's just a freak who disguises fear mongering as supposed " enlightenment " .
Stirs up the fears of backward rednecks just to make a profit from them and now he 's mad because someone pokes fun at him ?
Sounds like justice to me .
Of course , it 'll all just be a conspiracy by evil commies to bring him down and only you can save him for $ 14.95 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is that Beck is just a loon.
Anyone who's read his book would know he's just a freak who disguises fear mongering as supposed "enlightenment".
Stirs up the fears of backward rednecks just to make a profit from them and now he's mad because someone pokes fun at him?
Sounds like justice to me.
Of course, it'll all just be a conspiracy by evil commies to bring him down and only you can save him for $14.95.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047654</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1257876600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>Obama has, of course</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>No, he hasn't. He provided evidence that wouldn't get someone a driver's license in most states.  That being said, Beck dropped the "birther" stuff so long ago, it's not funny.  In fact, he's asked his viewers not to bring it up because it causes others to question their objectives when they pose far more solid criticisms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama has , of course No , he has n't .
He provided evidence that would n't get someone a driver 's license in most states .
That being said , Beck dropped the " birther " stuff so long ago , it 's not funny .
In fact , he 's asked his viewers not to bring it up because it causes others to question their objectives when they pose far more solid criticisms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Obama has, of course No, he hasn't.
He provided evidence that wouldn't get someone a driver's license in most states.
That being said, Beck dropped the "birther" stuff so long ago, it's not funny.
In fact, he's asked his viewers not to bring it up because it causes others to question their objectives when they pose far more solid criticisms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046950</id>
	<title>Re:handing back the domain FAIL</title>
	<author>floodo1</author>
	<datestamp>1257874260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How exactly is labeling Glen Beck evil equivalent to fearing free speach?<br>It's exactly because we (Beck included) have free speech that he can say the retarded things that he says which serve to highlight his evilness. I mean imagine someone exercising their right to free speech and proclaiming that they believe that all babies should be killed; people wouldn't be fearful of free speech if they called him a baby-hater.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly is labeling Glen Beck evil equivalent to fearing free speach ? It 's exactly because we ( Beck included ) have free speech that he can say the retarded things that he says which serve to highlight his evilness .
I mean imagine someone exercising their right to free speech and proclaiming that they believe that all babies should be killed ; people would n't be fearful of free speech if they called him a baby-hater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly is labeling Glen Beck evil equivalent to fearing free speach?It's exactly because we (Beck included) have free speech that he can say the retarded things that he says which serve to highlight his evilness.
I mean imagine someone exercising their right to free speech and proclaiming that they believe that all babies should be killed; people wouldn't be fearful of free speech if they called him a baby-hater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048886</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>L0rdJedi</author>
	<datestamp>1257880740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"He is very conservative"</p><p>I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives).  He's just crazy.  The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll.  I don't think he really has a position.  He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.</p></div><p>He's conservative to the point of being a Libertarian, which is essentially where he falls.  If you don't like his positions, then you probably wouldn't agree with the Founding Fathers either (which he quotes all the time).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" He is very conservative " I 'm a liberal but I think it 's an insult to conservatives to call him that ( seriously , there are intellectual , reasonable conservatives ) .
He 's just crazy .
The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll .
I do n't think he really has a position .
He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.He 's conservative to the point of being a Libertarian , which is essentially where he falls .
If you do n't like his positions , then you probably would n't agree with the Founding Fathers either ( which he quotes all the time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He is very conservative"I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives).
He's just crazy.
The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll.
I don't think he really has a position.
He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.He's conservative to the point of being a Libertarian, which is essentially where he falls.
If you don't like his positions, then you probably wouldn't agree with the Founding Fathers either (which he quotes all the time).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30063166</id>
	<title>Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers</title>
	<author>left00coaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257103260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anonymous pride? Hmm, I don't know, seems like an oxymoron to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous pride ?
Hmm , I do n't know , seems like an oxymoron to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous pride?
Hmm, I don't know, seems like an oxymoron to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047746</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>Tibor the Hun</author>
	<datestamp>1257876900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Beck's program is *not*on during fox's scheduled slot for news programs. As pointed out by John Stewart a few nights ago.<br>So you can pretend to call it news, (Beck's fans are good at pretending many a things), but the reality says otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Beck 's program is * not * on during fox 's scheduled slot for news programs .
As pointed out by John Stewart a few nights ago.So you can pretend to call it news , ( Beck 's fans are good at pretending many a things ) , but the reality says otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Beck's program is *not*on during fox's scheduled slot for news programs.
As pointed out by John Stewart a few nights ago.So you can pretend to call it news, (Beck's fans are good at pretending many a things), but the reality says otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047608</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1257876480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing is, it's a known fact that the President spent most of his young life in Kenya and Indonesia, whereas the "girl rape and murder" meme is a totally fabricated attempt at satire that is even lamer (and far more disturbing) than when Google was gamed to return Whitehouse.gov as the top result for "failure".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , it 's a known fact that the President spent most of his young life in Kenya and Indonesia , whereas the " girl rape and murder " meme is a totally fabricated attempt at satire that is even lamer ( and far more disturbing ) than when Google was gamed to return Whitehouse.gov as the top result for " failure " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, it's a known fact that the President spent most of his young life in Kenya and Indonesia, whereas the "girl rape and murder" meme is a totally fabricated attempt at satire that is even lamer (and far more disturbing) than when Google was gamed to return Whitehouse.gov as the top result for "failure".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045980</id>
	<title>Let's take Beck out of the equation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say its any other commentator, for example, Rachel Maddow. This doesn't seem right. The argument on here goes "Well, Glenn Beck uses the same tactics."</p><p>All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say its any other commentator , for example , Rachel Maddow .
This does n't seem right .
The argument on here goes " Well , Glenn Beck uses the same tactics .
" All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say its any other commentator, for example, Rachel Maddow.
This doesn't seem right.
The argument on here goes "Well, Glenn Beck uses the same tactics.
"All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053300</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257855960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>troll what an excellent word for him</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>troll what an excellent word for him</tokentext>
<sentencetext>troll what an excellent word for him</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046904</id>
	<title>Re:Who the fuck is Glenn Beck...</title>
	<author>rcuhljr</author>
	<datestamp>1257874080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've never seen SFW porn? Man you are missing out on one of the funniest things ever. They take images/videos and paint over inappropriate parts leaving thoroughly silly videos/images behind. Google for it some time it will brighten your day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've never seen SFW porn ?
Man you are missing out on one of the funniest things ever .
They take images/videos and paint over inappropriate parts leaving thoroughly silly videos/images behind .
Google for it some time it will brighten your day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've never seen SFW porn?
Man you are missing out on one of the funniest things ever.
They take images/videos and paint over inappropriate parts leaving thoroughly silly videos/images behind.
Google for it some time it will brighten your day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051040</id>
	<title>Re:Grow up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257846120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just pointed fingers and called names in your post, so what does that make you?  A hypocrite perhaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just pointed fingers and called names in your post , so what does that make you ?
A hypocrite perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just pointed fingers and called names in your post, so what does that make you?
A hypocrite perhaps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048916</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>L0rdJedi</author>
	<datestamp>1257880800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.</p></div><p>You are not watching his show.  I can tell because what you say is a lie.  He has never said that Obama was born in Kenya.  He has referenced the "birther" movement a few times.  I've been watching his show since February and he rarely talks about where Obama was born.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck , to this day , repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya .
He asks , if he was born here , why does n't he prove it ?
Obama has , of course , but Beck acts as though he has n't .
So someone decided to apply Glen Beck 's own tactics against him , by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.You are not watching his show .
I can tell because what you say is a lie .
He has never said that Obama was born in Kenya .
He has referenced the " birther " movement a few times .
I 've been watching his show since February and he rarely talks about where Obama was born .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it?
Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't.
So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.You are not watching his show.
I can tell because what you say is a lie.
He has never said that Obama was born in Kenya.
He has referenced the "birther" movement a few times.
I've been watching his show since February and he rarely talks about where Obama was born.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047990</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1257877680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey mods: "flamebait" isn't a synonym with "I disagree".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey mods : " flamebait " is n't a synonym with " I disagree " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey mods: "flamebait" isn't a synonym with "I disagree".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050818</id>
	<title>Re:"Beck didn't see the humour"</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1257845100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a bit confused by your post. But then I realized your spelling was not because you are British, but due to you being a medieval serf who beliefs that we're talking about essential body fluids. In that case you're correct. Neither satire nor parody is a (normal) bodily fluid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a bit confused by your post .
But then I realized your spelling was not because you are British , but due to you being a medieval serf who beliefs that we 're talking about essential body fluids .
In that case you 're correct .
Neither satire nor parody is a ( normal ) bodily fluid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a bit confused by your post.
But then I realized your spelling was not because you are British, but due to you being a medieval serf who beliefs that we're talking about essential body fluids.
In that case you're correct.
Neither satire nor parody is a (normal) bodily fluid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048188</id>
	<title>Wait . . . you're saying Glenn Beck shagged sheep?</title>
	<author>StefanJ</author>
	<datestamp>1257878280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I bet that's where his mom got the wool for The Christmas Sweater!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I bet that 's where his mom got the wool for The Christmas Sweater !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I bet that's where his mom got the wool for The Christmas Sweater!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052144</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you will about Beck but he's not a birther,  I get the feeling none of you have watched his show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will about Beck but he 's not a birther , I get the feeling none of you have watched his show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will about Beck but he's not a birther,  I get the feeling none of you have watched his show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30057414</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, he's crazy and we shouldn't call him conservative.</p><p>That still leaves an open question: what do we call the people that readily associate with his show, absorb his way of thinking, allow him to be on FOX News, etc? Are they conservatives? Are they crazy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , he 's crazy and we should n't call him conservative.That still leaves an open question : what do we call the people that readily associate with his show , absorb his way of thinking , allow him to be on FOX News , etc ?
Are they conservatives ?
Are they crazy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, he's crazy and we shouldn't call him conservative.That still leaves an open question: what do we call the people that readily associate with his show, absorb his way of thinking, allow him to be on FOX News, etc?
Are they conservatives?
Are they crazy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053890</id>
	<title>Re:Precident-setting?</title>
	<author>Okonomiyaki</author>
	<datestamp>1257859320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but also, Beck will now have to periodically renew the domain to keep it from falling into the "wrong" hands. So, every year or so his credit card statement will bear the words "didglenbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990". Something about that makes me smile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but also , Beck will now have to periodically renew the domain to keep it from falling into the " wrong " hands .
So , every year or so his credit card statement will bear the words " didglenbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990 " .
Something about that makes me smile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but also, Beck will now have to periodically renew the domain to keep it from falling into the "wrong" hands.
So, every year or so his credit card statement will bear the words "didglenbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990".
Something about that makes me smile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046130</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>MagicM</author>
	<datestamp>1257871080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the site.  You'll know everything you need to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the site .
You 'll know everything you need to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the site.
You'll know everything you need to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053448</id>
	<title>False equivalence</title>
	<author>tiqui</author>
	<datestamp>1257856680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glenn Beck plays lots of videos of Obama officials ranting and raving in praise of mass murderers and dictators, then invites team Obama to explain themselves... and the left is so outraged that they respond by playing videos of him raping and murdering.... no... wait... they have no such videos for him to explain....</p><p>The website was not a valid parody of Beck at all. It was just another nasty Obama hugger trying to distract from the questions Beck asked <b>using video of Obama's own people ranting like lunatics</b> It is not Beck's fault that so many on team Obama are on video that way... it's their own fault. The Obama vetting people allowed these people to be hired with, apparently, less background checking than a circus clown using google was able to do. This is a classic case of getting mad at the messenger when you do not like the message.</p><p>Beck at least loudly proclaims himself to be a circus clown and he has no governmental power or authority to do anything to anybody. He did <b>not</b> just make-up a bunch of ugly accusations about criminal offenses by Obama and then demand a response. Beck played videos of Obama people who were making, or advising on, government policy and some of whom were overseeing billions of tax dollars raving like certifiable lunatics and he then asked the administration to provide an alternate explanation for what was said that would be less nasty than the actual words uttered by team Obama.</p><p> <b>There is no video of Beck bragging about a rape and a murder</b> I would have hoped that the brainier-than-normal crowd who hang-out on slashdot would have seen the invalid comparison immediately and even the liberals here would rise above their biases to see that. The day Beck or anybody else on Fox accuse Obama of rape and murder with no evidence whatsoever, I will join the left in being outraged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck plays lots of videos of Obama officials ranting and raving in praise of mass murderers and dictators , then invites team Obama to explain themselves... and the left is so outraged that they respond by playing videos of him raping and murdering.... no... wait... they have no such videos for him to explain....The website was not a valid parody of Beck at all .
It was just another nasty Obama hugger trying to distract from the questions Beck asked using video of Obama 's own people ranting like lunatics It is not Beck 's fault that so many on team Obama are on video that way... it 's their own fault .
The Obama vetting people allowed these people to be hired with , apparently , less background checking than a circus clown using google was able to do .
This is a classic case of getting mad at the messenger when you do not like the message.Beck at least loudly proclaims himself to be a circus clown and he has no governmental power or authority to do anything to anybody .
He did not just make-up a bunch of ugly accusations about criminal offenses by Obama and then demand a response .
Beck played videos of Obama people who were making , or advising on , government policy and some of whom were overseeing billions of tax dollars raving like certifiable lunatics and he then asked the administration to provide an alternate explanation for what was said that would be less nasty than the actual words uttered by team Obama .
There is no video of Beck bragging about a rape and a murder I would have hoped that the brainier-than-normal crowd who hang-out on slashdot would have seen the invalid comparison immediately and even the liberals here would rise above their biases to see that .
The day Beck or anybody else on Fox accuse Obama of rape and murder with no evidence whatsoever , I will join the left in being outraged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck plays lots of videos of Obama officials ranting and raving in praise of mass murderers and dictators, then invites team Obama to explain themselves... and the left is so outraged that they respond by playing videos of him raping and murdering.... no... wait... they have no such videos for him to explain....The website was not a valid parody of Beck at all.
It was just another nasty Obama hugger trying to distract from the questions Beck asked using video of Obama's own people ranting like lunatics It is not Beck's fault that so many on team Obama are on video that way... it's their own fault.
The Obama vetting people allowed these people to be hired with, apparently, less background checking than a circus clown using google was able to do.
This is a classic case of getting mad at the messenger when you do not like the message.Beck at least loudly proclaims himself to be a circus clown and he has no governmental power or authority to do anything to anybody.
He did not just make-up a bunch of ugly accusations about criminal offenses by Obama and then demand a response.
Beck played videos of Obama people who were making, or advising on, government policy and some of whom were overseeing billions of tax dollars raving like certifiable lunatics and he then asked the administration to provide an alternate explanation for what was said that would be less nasty than the actual words uttered by team Obama.
There is no video of Beck bragging about a rape and a murder I would have hoped that the brainier-than-normal crowd who hang-out on slashdot would have seen the invalid comparison immediately and even the liberals here would rise above their biases to see that.
The day Beck or anybody else on Fox accuse Obama of rape and murder with no evidence whatsoever, I will join the left in being outraged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047080</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>ttroutma</author>
	<datestamp>1257874740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Glenn Beck is not a birther.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck is not a birther .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck is not a birther.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046578</id>
	<title>still a valid concern</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257872940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter what you may think of Glen Beck, baseless rumor created by misleading posts on the web could have serious consequences for any public figure. Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations, as does any other public figure. I'm not sure how a public figure can defend themselves against this sort of thing, regardless of the source and target. The price of the First Amendment may be that we also have the responsibility to take care with the sources of our information and not give credence to rumor and slander. Unfortunately, that sort of responsibility seems not to be in vogue, and places the only defense of 's reputation in the hands of John Q. Public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what you may think of Glen Beck , baseless rumor created by misleading posts on the web could have serious consequences for any public figure .
Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations , as does any other public figure .
I 'm not sure how a public figure can defend themselves against this sort of thing , regardless of the source and target .
The price of the First Amendment may be that we also have the responsibility to take care with the sources of our information and not give credence to rumor and slander .
Unfortunately , that sort of responsibility seems not to be in vogue , and places the only defense of 's reputation in the hands of John Q. Public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what you may think of Glen Beck, baseless rumor created by misleading posts on the web could have serious consequences for any public figure.
Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations, as does any other public figure.
I'm not sure how a public figure can defend themselves against this sort of thing, regardless of the source and target.
The price of the First Amendment may be that we also have the responsibility to take care with the sources of our information and not give credence to rumor and slander.
Unfortunately, that sort of responsibility seems not to be in vogue, and places the only defense of 's reputation in the hands of John Q. Public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050268</id>
	<title>weaselly wipo</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257885900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Eiland-Hall "<b>appears</b> to the panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that [Eiland-Hall] <b>appears</b> genuinely to <b>believe</b> is employed by [Beck] in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason [Eiland-Hall] <b>can be said</b> to be making a political statement."</p></div> </blockquote><p>This is pretty weaselly language for a ruling. Is it even enforceable given the complete lack of concrete wording?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eiland-Hall " appears to the panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that [ Eiland-Hall ] appears genuinely to believe is employed by [ Beck ] in the provision of political commentary , and for that reason [ Eiland-Hall ] can be said to be making a political statement .
" This is pretty weaselly language for a ruling .
Is it even enforceable given the complete lack of concrete wording ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eiland-Hall "appears to the panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that [Eiland-Hall] appears genuinely to believe is employed by [Beck] in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason [Eiland-Hall] can be said to be making a political statement.
" This is pretty weaselly language for a ruling.
Is it even enforceable given the complete lack of concrete wording?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047718</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257876780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obviously, the Whtie House doesn't want to take the bait, because then they'll have to actually talk about those idiots directly</p></div><p>They don't want to "take the bait" because all it would legitimize Beck and drive up his ratings.  Haven't you ever heard that you shouldn't argue with a madman?  The people who are convinced by his ravings won't be convinced by your good arguments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , the Whtie House does n't want to take the bait , because then they 'll have to actually talk about those idiots directlyThey do n't want to " take the bait " because all it would legitimize Beck and drive up his ratings .
Have n't you ever heard that you should n't argue with a madman ?
The people who are convinced by his ravings wo n't be convinced by your good arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, the Whtie House doesn't want to take the bait, because then they'll have to actually talk about those idiots directlyThey don't want to "take the bait" because all it would legitimize Beck and drive up his ratings.
Haven't you ever heard that you shouldn't argue with a madman?
The people who are convinced by his ravings won't be convinced by your good arguments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052982</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257854100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea. this from a nation that has socialized medicine where if you want some thing taken care of you come over here to have it done. if that is what it means to demonstrate rational thought i'm glad we haven't demonstrated it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't demonstrated any rational thought , as a nation , since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea .
this from a nation that has socialized medicine where if you want some thing taken care of you come over here to have it done .
if that is what it means to demonstrate rational thought i 'm glad we have n't demonstrated it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea.
this from a nation that has socialized medicine where if you want some thing taken care of you come over here to have it done.
if that is what it means to demonstrate rational thought i'm glad we haven't demonstrated it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047180</id>
	<title>Not Quite</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1257875100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Still, it's comforting to know that satire &mdash; the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear &mdash; is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs."</p><p>Unless the parody is a rewriting of an instrumental techno song used during a fight scene in a movie, with samples from "ALIENS" ("nuke 'em from orbit" and "game over man, game over") pasted onto it, and it presented as an anti-spam fight song. Despite being clearly labeled as a parody using a non-original form of the music and fair use sized vocal samples, we got a very pleasant request explaining why they were asking us to remove it, and after having done so a regular snotty legalistic bombast C&amp;D. I've been writing Weird Al style parody songs for 20 years and know the laws. This one was legal. But we got the ding letters anyway. Their tone and intentions change when there's money to be made or not from the material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Still , it 's comforting to know that satire    the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear    is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs .
" Unless the parody is a rewriting of an instrumental techno song used during a fight scene in a movie , with samples from " ALIENS " ( " nuke 'em from orbit " and " game over man , game over " ) pasted onto it , and it presented as an anti-spam fight song .
Despite being clearly labeled as a parody using a non-original form of the music and fair use sized vocal samples , we got a very pleasant request explaining why they were asking us to remove it , and after having done so a regular snotty legalistic bombast C&amp;D .
I 've been writing Weird Al style parody songs for 20 years and know the laws .
This one was legal .
But we got the ding letters anyway .
Their tone and intentions change when there 's money to be made or not from the material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs.
"Unless the parody is a rewriting of an instrumental techno song used during a fight scene in a movie, with samples from "ALIENS" ("nuke 'em from orbit" and "game over man, game over") pasted onto it, and it presented as an anti-spam fight song.
Despite being clearly labeled as a parody using a non-original form of the music and fair use sized vocal samples, we got a very pleasant request explaining why they were asking us to remove it, and after having done so a regular snotty legalistic bombast C&amp;D.
I've been writing Weird Al style parody songs for 20 years and know the laws.
This one was legal.
But we got the ding letters anyway.
Their tone and intentions change when there's money to be made or not from the material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1257872220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being British, I have not heard of Glenn Beck. After reading the Slashdot summary, I now believe he did rape and murder a young girl in 1990. Does someone want to tell me different?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being British , I have not heard of Glenn Beck .
After reading the Slashdot summary , I now believe he did rape and murder a young girl in 1990 .
Does someone want to tell me different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being British, I have not heard of Glenn Beck.
After reading the Slashdot summary, I now believe he did rape and murder a young girl in 1990.
Does someone want to tell me different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047124</id>
	<title>WIPO has certainly made worse decisions -</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1257874860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0479.html" title="wipo.int">http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0479.html</a> [wipo.int] <br> <br>

Just goes to show that (unlike the above case) <i>actually</i> defending your domain name can work, even against people with armies of lawyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0479.html [ wipo.int ] Just goes to show that ( unlike the above case ) actually defending your domain name can work , even against people with armies of lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0479.html [wipo.int]  

Just goes to show that (unlike the above case) actually defending your domain name can work, even against people with armies of lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30057822</id>
	<title>You Cant Deny It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You cant deny it "Beck is on the Money" and lots of it !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You cant deny it " Beck is on the Money " and lots of it !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cant deny it "Beck is on the Money" and lots of it !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048682</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But as near as I can tell, from reading the posts on this thread, he's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts.</p></div><p>Actually, if you catch his show you'll see that he actually directly accuses people and even backs it up with evidence.  I'm not a fan of his, he's a bit too confrontational for me, but whenever I do catch it he seems to have a pretty solid backing for what he is talking about.  I'm sure that there's plenty of hyperbole involved, there always is with political pundits, but he certainly seems no worse than other such media personalities from all ends of the political spectrum.</p><p>That being said, the people who made this website are probably technically in the right but they are certainly morally in the wrong.  When you attempt to smear someone with guilt through association or by asking a suggestive question all you are doing is proving that you can't argue intelligently.  This is doubly true when you claim you are doing it to give someone a taste of their own medicine.  It's not a valid form of argument, either argue your case rationally or don't bother the rest of us with these antics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But as near as I can tell , from reading the posts on this thread , he 's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts.Actually , if you catch his show you 'll see that he actually directly accuses people and even backs it up with evidence .
I 'm not a fan of his , he 's a bit too confrontational for me , but whenever I do catch it he seems to have a pretty solid backing for what he is talking about .
I 'm sure that there 's plenty of hyperbole involved , there always is with political pundits , but he certainly seems no worse than other such media personalities from all ends of the political spectrum.That being said , the people who made this website are probably technically in the right but they are certainly morally in the wrong .
When you attempt to smear someone with guilt through association or by asking a suggestive question all you are doing is proving that you ca n't argue intelligently .
This is doubly true when you claim you are doing it to give someone a taste of their own medicine .
It 's not a valid form of argument , either argue your case rationally or do n't bother the rest of us with these antics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But as near as I can tell, from reading the posts on this thread, he's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts.Actually, if you catch his show you'll see that he actually directly accuses people and even backs it up with evidence.
I'm not a fan of his, he's a bit too confrontational for me, but whenever I do catch it he seems to have a pretty solid backing for what he is talking about.
I'm sure that there's plenty of hyperbole involved, there always is with political pundits, but he certainly seems no worse than other such media personalities from all ends of the political spectrum.That being said, the people who made this website are probably technically in the right but they are certainly morally in the wrong.
When you attempt to smear someone with guilt through association or by asking a suggestive question all you are doing is proving that you can't argue intelligently.
This is doubly true when you claim you are doing it to give someone a taste of their own medicine.
It's not a valid form of argument, either argue your case rationally or don't bother the rest of us with these antics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052400</id>
	<title>Re:When did Glen Beck start being conservative?</title>
	<author>changa</author>
	<datestamp>1257851460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>He is a professional troll and he may be starting to believe his own press.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is a professional troll and he may be starting to believe his own press .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is a professional troll and he may be starting to believe his own press.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051228</id>
	<title>Re:Crossing the line</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1257846900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, </i><br>*snip*<br><i>But come on, this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous acts</i></p><p>Well, thankfully Glenn Beck disagrees, and making an implication is perfectly OK, even for (especially for) truly heinous acts.</p><p>If it's good enough for Glenn Beck, it's good enough for the common American citizen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan of Glenn Beck , * snip * But come on , this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous actsWell , thankfully Glenn Beck disagrees , and making an implication is perfectly OK , even for ( especially for ) truly heinous acts.If it 's good enough for Glenn Beck , it 's good enough for the common American citizen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, *snip*But come on, this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous actsWell, thankfully Glenn Beck disagrees, and making an implication is perfectly OK, even for (especially for) truly heinous acts.If it's good enough for Glenn Beck, it's good enough for the common American citizen!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046412</id>
	<title>Re:handing back the domain FAIL</title>
	<author>BeansBaxter</author>
	<datestamp>1257872220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What?  Someone modded you INSIGHTFUL?  Ok its slashdot but still.  Glenn Beck is evil?  He must be destroyed?  I think your post highlights an absolute fear of free speech.  And for that you are modded insightful.  Yes I'm in the wrong forum when talking about freedom and yes slashdot users have a bias which ruins its credibility.  I don't fault the poster as much as the modders.  Just a joke.

Oh and on topic glad that freedoms were up-held and I love Beck's stuff.  He cracks me up and makes me think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Someone modded you INSIGHTFUL ?
Ok its slashdot but still .
Glenn Beck is evil ?
He must be destroyed ?
I think your post highlights an absolute fear of free speech .
And for that you are modded insightful .
Yes I 'm in the wrong forum when talking about freedom and yes slashdot users have a bias which ruins its credibility .
I do n't fault the poster as much as the modders .
Just a joke .
Oh and on topic glad that freedoms were up-held and I love Beck 's stuff .
He cracks me up and makes me think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Someone modded you INSIGHTFUL?
Ok its slashdot but still.
Glenn Beck is evil?
He must be destroyed?
I think your post highlights an absolute fear of free speech.
And for that you are modded insightful.
Yes I'm in the wrong forum when talking about freedom and yes slashdot users have a bias which ruins its credibility.
I don't fault the poster as much as the modders.
Just a joke.
Oh and on topic glad that freedoms were up-held and I love Beck's stuff.
He cracks me up and makes me think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046320</id>
	<title>Crossing the line</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1257871860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, primarily because his commentary tends to get fairly extreme and lacks proper fact-checking.</p><p>But come on, this domain name was making the implication that someone committed <i>truly heinous acts</i>, not just par-for-the-course political chicanery.</p><p>Regardless of who the target was, doesn't this cross a line that shouldn't be crossed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan of Glenn Beck , primarily because his commentary tends to get fairly extreme and lacks proper fact-checking.But come on , this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous acts , not just par-for-the-course political chicanery.Regardless of who the target was , does n't this cross a line that should n't be crossed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, primarily because his commentary tends to get fairly extreme and lacks proper fact-checking.But come on, this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous acts, not just par-for-the-course political chicanery.Regardless of who the target was, doesn't this cross a line that shouldn't be crossed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055436</id>
	<title>Glen Becks program info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,</p><p>
&nbsp; In Australia on FoxNews channel  the program information category comes up as 'Entertainment', whereas OReily and others come up as  'News'. Is that the same in the US/elsewhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi ,   In Australia on FoxNews channel the program information category comes up as 'Entertainment ' , whereas OReily and others come up as 'News' .
Is that the same in the US/elsewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,
  In Australia on FoxNews channel  the program information category comes up as 'Entertainment', whereas OReily and others come up as  'News'.
Is that the same in the US/elsewhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30064868</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>camazotz</author>
	<datestamp>1257066240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we're ragging on Glen Beck's specious argumentation, why turn around and do it to Americans in general? There are a few of us who don't go in for that nonsense, after all! A very, very small percentage, it seems....but I still hate getting lumped in with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're ragging on Glen Beck 's specious argumentation , why turn around and do it to Americans in general ?
There are a few of us who do n't go in for that nonsense , after all !
A very , very small percentage , it seems....but I still hate getting lumped in with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're ragging on Glen Beck's specious argumentation, why turn around and do it to Americans in general?
There are a few of us who don't go in for that nonsense, after all!
A very, very small percentage, it seems....but I still hate getting lumped in with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050958</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>ejasons</author>
	<datestamp>1257845760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>He's conservative to the point of being a Libertarian, which is essentially where he falls. If you don't like his positions, then you probably wouldn't agree with the Founding Fathers either (which he quotes all the time).</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I wouldn't care if Glenn Beck were to match my political positions exactly.  He is intellectually dishonest, which makes him (and, frankly, those who support him) pond scum, in my book...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's conservative to the point of being a Libertarian , which is essentially where he falls .
If you do n't like his positions , then you probably would n't agree with the Founding Fathers either ( which he quotes all the time ) .
I would n't care if Glenn Beck were to match my political positions exactly .
He is intellectually dishonest , which makes him ( and , frankly , those who support him ) pond scum , in my book.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> He's conservative to the point of being a Libertarian, which is essentially where he falls.
If you don't like his positions, then you probably wouldn't agree with the Founding Fathers either (which he quotes all the time).
I wouldn't care if Glenn Beck were to match my political positions exactly.
He is intellectually dishonest, which makes him (and, frankly, those who support him) pond scum, in my book...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30062088</id>
	<title>Re:Grow up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>John Stewart and Glenn Beck</p></div></blockquote><p>You're conflating Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck?</p><p>Jon Stewart is a <i>comedian</i>.  His "news" show is on <b>Comedy</b> Central.  His audience and the guests who appear on the show are well aware it's <i>satirical</i>.</p><p>If Beck wants to present his show as comedy, that's fine.  Putting it on the Fox <b>News</b> Channel doesn't do that.  (Nor does crying uncontrollably on the air at the drop of a hat.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>John Stewart and Glenn BeckYou 're conflating Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck ? Jon Stewart is a comedian .
His " news " show is on Comedy Central .
His audience and the guests who appear on the show are well aware it 's satirical.If Beck wants to present his show as comedy , that 's fine .
Putting it on the Fox News Channel does n't do that .
( Nor does crying uncontrollably on the air at the drop of a hat .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Stewart and Glenn BeckYou're conflating Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck?Jon Stewart is a comedian.
His "news" show is on Comedy Central.
His audience and the guests who appear on the show are well aware it's satirical.If Beck wants to present his show as comedy, that's fine.
Putting it on the Fox News Channel doesn't do that.
(Nor does crying uncontrollably on the air at the drop of a hat.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972</id>
	<title>For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn\_Beck" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn\_Beck</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.</p><p>Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn \ _Beck [ wikipedia.org ] And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip , which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn\_Beck [wikipedia.org]And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047800</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>ZekoMal</author>
	<datestamp>1257877080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it wasn't the White House that said he wasn't news: it was Fox News that said he wasn't news. Because he isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it was n't the White House that said he was n't news : it was Fox News that said he was n't news .
Because he is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it wasn't the White House that said he wasn't news: it was Fox News that said he wasn't news.
Because he isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047986</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)</p></div><p>...Ann Coulter's <i>not</i> a transsexual?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter , because she does the same shit .
Unfortunately it did n't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual .
) ...Ann Coulter 's not a transsexual ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit.
Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.
)...Ann Coulter's not a transsexual?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047158</id>
	<title>Onion hilarity</title>
	<author>slasho81</author>
	<datestamp>1257874980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident" title="theonion.com">Indulge.</a> [theonion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indulge .
[ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indulge.
[theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051726</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257848760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied being a transexual? I mean if he wasn't he'd just say so right? It's time for someone to ask the tough questions here!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why has n't Glenn Beck denied being a transexual ?
I mean if he was n't he 'd just say so right ?
It 's time for someone to ask the tough questions here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied being a transexual?
I mean if he wasn't he'd just say so right?
It's time for someone to ask the tough questions here!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053700</id>
	<title>Conspiring forces of evil</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1257858180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was clearly a conspiracy. Let's see if anyone denies it before I finish my post.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Well, no one denied it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was clearly a conspiracy .
Let 's see if anyone denies it before I finish my post .
...Well , no one denied it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was clearly a conspiracy.
Let's see if anyone denies it before I finish my post.
...Well, no one denied it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045916</id>
	<title>handing back the domain FAIL</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should have handed the domain to someone who could have done even more with it, say AdBusters. Glenn Beck is evil and must be destroyed... not literally of course, but he must be combated intelligently (as in this example!) which is the only way to take away his power. Actually snuffing him would make him a martyr and that would be disgusting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should have handed the domain to someone who could have done even more with it , say AdBusters .
Glenn Beck is evil and must be destroyed... not literally of course , but he must be combated intelligently ( as in this example !
) which is the only way to take away his power .
Actually snuffing him would make him a martyr and that would be disgusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should have handed the domain to someone who could have done even more with it, say AdBusters.
Glenn Beck is evil and must be destroyed... not literally of course, but he must be combated intelligently (as in this example!
) which is the only way to take away his power.
Actually snuffing him would make him a martyr and that would be disgusting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053918</id>
	<title>The whiners have nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257859440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All it proves is that the whiners have nothing, except copying a Gilbert Godfried routine.</p><p>BTW, why is Glenn Beck still on the air? The kos zombies were supposed to have taken all of his sponsors away already. That worked just as well as all of their other attempts to silence free speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All it proves is that the whiners have nothing , except copying a Gilbert Godfried routine.BTW , why is Glenn Beck still on the air ?
The kos zombies were supposed to have taken all of his sponsors away already .
That worked just as well as all of their other attempts to silence free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All it proves is that the whiners have nothing, except copying a Gilbert Godfried routine.BTW, why is Glenn Beck still on the air?
The kos zombies were supposed to have taken all of his sponsors away already.
That worked just as well as all of their other attempts to silence free speech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049942</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257884700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shame Canada with your response.</p><p>With the entire internet at your disposal, you've made your judgment on Glenn Beck based on posts on an unrelated, liberal-leaning website? You "can tell" he's an "ultra-conservative blow-hard" without ever having read his books or watched his show? That's rather presumptuous.</p><p>I don't like Glenn Beck's show myself, but I certainly don't pretend to know a thing about him. I also don't accept as objective or verifiable fact comments made about him on Slashdot.</p><p>Here's some more food for the crap you pass as thought through your ignorant Canadian ass: McCarthy was a politician, Glenn Beck is an entertainer. If you can't see the difference between the two you're as stupid as you are smug.</p><p>As one last point of correction, if you're making some kind of veiled, cheeky reference to the Boston Tea Party, that happened in 1773.</p><p>The next time you decide to post somewhere, please preface your remarks with "as an ignorant jackass" or "as an unprincipled moron", rather than shaming the rest of the Dominion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You shame Canada with your response.With the entire internet at your disposal , you 've made your judgment on Glenn Beck based on posts on an unrelated , liberal-leaning website ?
You " can tell " he 's an " ultra-conservative blow-hard " without ever having read his books or watched his show ?
That 's rather presumptuous.I do n't like Glenn Beck 's show myself , but I certainly do n't pretend to know a thing about him .
I also do n't accept as objective or verifiable fact comments made about him on Slashdot.Here 's some more food for the crap you pass as thought through your ignorant Canadian ass : McCarthy was a politician , Glenn Beck is an entertainer .
If you ca n't see the difference between the two you 're as stupid as you are smug.As one last point of correction , if you 're making some kind of veiled , cheeky reference to the Boston Tea Party , that happened in 1773.The next time you decide to post somewhere , please preface your remarks with " as an ignorant jackass " or " as an unprincipled moron " , rather than shaming the rest of the Dominion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shame Canada with your response.With the entire internet at your disposal, you've made your judgment on Glenn Beck based on posts on an unrelated, liberal-leaning website?
You "can tell" he's an "ultra-conservative blow-hard" without ever having read his books or watched his show?
That's rather presumptuous.I don't like Glenn Beck's show myself, but I certainly don't pretend to know a thing about him.
I also don't accept as objective or verifiable fact comments made about him on Slashdot.Here's some more food for the crap you pass as thought through your ignorant Canadian ass: McCarthy was a politician, Glenn Beck is an entertainer.
If you can't see the difference between the two you're as stupid as you are smug.As one last point of correction, if you're making some kind of veiled, cheeky reference to the Boston Tea Party, that happened in 1773.The next time you decide to post somewhere, please preface your remarks with "as an ignorant jackass" or "as an unprincipled moron", rather than shaming the rest of the Dominion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1257874020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"He is very conservative"</p><p>I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives).  He's just crazy.  The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll.  I don't think he really has a position.  He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" He is very conservative " I 'm a liberal but I think it 's an insult to conservatives to call him that ( seriously , there are intellectual , reasonable conservatives ) .
He 's just crazy .
The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll .
I do n't think he really has a position .
He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He is very conservative"I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives).
He's just crazy.
The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll.
I don't think he really has a position.
He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052274</id>
	<title>Never been slashdotted before</title>
	<author>Daychilde</author>
	<datestamp>1257850980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, cool, I just found this story! Daychilde is my common nickname - I adopted NameWithheld during the time I managed to stay anonymous - I'm Isaac Eiland-Hall. And this story explains why the server load is as high as it is, although we've been featured in a lot of places today.</p><p>If you want to see what you guys are doing to my two servers, check out <a href="http://namewithheld.us/" title="namewithheld.us" rel="nofollow">http://namewithheld.us/</a> [namewithheld.us] - I have live stats up.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , cool , I just found this story !
Daychilde is my common nickname - I adopted NameWithheld during the time I managed to stay anonymous - I 'm Isaac Eiland-Hall .
And this story explains why the server load is as high as it is , although we 've been featured in a lot of places today.If you want to see what you guys are doing to my two servers , check out http : //namewithheld.us/ [ namewithheld.us ] - I have live stats up .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, cool, I just found this story!
Daychilde is my common nickname - I adopted NameWithheld during the time I managed to stay anonymous - I'm Isaac Eiland-Hall.
And this story explains why the server load is as high as it is, although we've been featured in a lot of places today.If you want to see what you guys are doing to my two servers, check out http://namewithheld.us/ [namewithheld.us] - I have live stats up.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046670</id>
	<title>BUT the site failed the first prong...</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1257873240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are three prongs under the UDRP that must be satisfied to take someone's domain name:<p><div class="quote"><p>(i) respondent&rsquo;s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name; and
(iii) respondent&rsquo;s domain name has been registered and is being used in
bad faith.</p></div><p>Now, most normal people would say that "glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com" isn't confusing similar to "Glenn Beck" or even "glennbeck.com", but that wasn't the conclusion WIPO came to:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the present case, a well-known trademark is directly
incorporated in a domain name and additional terms are added. Even a &ldquo;moron in a
hurry&rdquo; would not likely conclude that Complainant sponsored, endorsed or was
affiliated with the website addressed by the disputed domain name. At the same time,
the only reason why the typical Internet user would be tempted to visit the website
addressed by the disputed domain name is precisely because Complainant&rsquo;s well-known
trademark is directly incorporated in the disputed domain name. Respondent is gaining
an advantage in Internet visits based on the use of Complainant&rsquo;s mark, irrespective of
whether Respondent&rsquo;s use is legitimate...</p><p>In the instant proceeding, Respondent has intentionally used the well-known trademark
and service mark of Complainant in an &ldquo;inflammatory&rdquo; domain name in order to attract
Internet users to its website. Based on the reasoning explained above, the Panel
determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant&rsquo;s mark
for purposes of the Policy.</p></div><p>So, it's not an outright win for free speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three prongs under the UDRP that must be satisfied to take someone 's domain name : ( i ) respondent    s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights ; and ( ii ) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name ; and ( iii ) respondent    s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.Now , most normal people would say that " glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com " is n't confusing similar to " Glenn Beck " or even " glennbeck.com " , but that was n't the conclusion WIPO came to : In the present case , a well-known trademark is directly incorporated in a domain name and additional terms are added .
Even a    moron in a hurry    would not likely conclude that Complainant sponsored , endorsed or was affiliated with the website addressed by the disputed domain name .
At the same time , the only reason why the typical Internet user would be tempted to visit the website addressed by the disputed domain name is precisely because Complainant    s well-known trademark is directly incorporated in the disputed domain name .
Respondent is gaining an advantage in Internet visits based on the use of Complainant    s mark , irrespective of whether Respondent    s use is legitimate...In the instant proceeding , Respondent has intentionally used the well-known trademark and service mark of Complainant in an    inflammatory    domain name in order to attract Internet users to its website .
Based on the reasoning explained above , the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant    s mark for purposes of the Policy.So , it 's not an outright win for free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three prongs under the UDRP that must be satisfied to take someone's domain name:(i) respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name; and
(iii) respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in
bad faith.Now, most normal people would say that "glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com" isn't confusing similar to "Glenn Beck" or even "glennbeck.com", but that wasn't the conclusion WIPO came to:In the present case, a well-known trademark is directly
incorporated in a domain name and additional terms are added.
Even a “moron in a
hurry” would not likely conclude that Complainant sponsored, endorsed or was
affiliated with the website addressed by the disputed domain name.
At the same time,
the only reason why the typical Internet user would be tempted to visit the website
addressed by the disputed domain name is precisely because Complainant’s well-known
trademark is directly incorporated in the disputed domain name.
Respondent is gaining
an advantage in Internet visits based on the use of Complainant’s mark, irrespective of
whether Respondent’s use is legitimate...In the instant proceeding, Respondent has intentionally used the well-known trademark
and service mark of Complainant in an “inflammatory” domain name in order to attract
Internet users to its website.
Based on the reasoning explained above, the Panel
determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark
for purposes of the Policy.So, it's not an outright win for free speech.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047910</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>johnm1019</author>
	<datestamp>1257877440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>mod parent up!
I wish the republican party could be taken back over by intellectual conservatives who actually believe in less spending.
I don't care if Glenn Beck is a member of the Green party, he is just crazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>mod parent up !
I wish the republican party could be taken back over by intellectual conservatives who actually believe in less spending .
I do n't care if Glenn Beck is a member of the Green party , he is just crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod parent up!
I wish the republican party could be taken back over by intellectual conservatives who actually believe in less spending.
I don't care if Glenn Beck is a member of the Green party, he is just crazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047512</id>
	<title>The Onion</title>
	<author>pipboy9999</author>
	<datestamp>1257876120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if he'll have the same reaction to this piece from the onion? <p> <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim\_in\_fatal\_car\_accident" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">The Onion's opinion.</a> [theonion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if he 'll have the same reaction to this piece from the onion ?
The Onion 's opinion .
[ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if he'll have the same reaction to this piece from the onion?
The Onion's opinion.
[theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924</id>
	<title>Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1257870360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
</p><p>If not, why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 ?
If not , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
If not, why not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046694</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1257873360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being British, I have not heard of Glenn Beck.</p></div><p>Remember a few weeks ago there was all that outrage that the neocon Tory MEP Dan Hannan had been slagging off the NHS on American TV?</p><p>That was on the Glenn Beck show. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpda3l2ri0Y" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpda3l2ri0Y</a> [youtube.com]  - guaranteed to raise your blood pressure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being British , I have not heard of Glenn Beck.Remember a few weeks ago there was all that outrage that the neocon Tory MEP Dan Hannan had been slagging off the NHS on American TV ? That was on the Glenn Beck show .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = bpda3l2ri0Y [ youtube.com ] - guaranteed to raise your blood pressure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being British, I have not heard of Glenn Beck.Remember a few weeks ago there was all that outrage that the neocon Tory MEP Dan Hannan had been slagging off the NHS on American TV?That was on the Glenn Beck show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpda3l2ri0Y [youtube.com]  - guaranteed to raise your blood pressure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049198</id>
	<title>For "former Communist" read "former Nazi"</title>
	<author>JackDW</author>
	<datestamp>1257881820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet, it seems like this Jones chap actually did claim to be a "radical Communist", which to my mind is a bit like claiming to be a big admirer of Hitler. It is hardly a spurious accusation or a McCarthyist witch hunt based on fabricated evidence and leading questions. Jones openly advocated extreme politics of a sort that killed hundreds of millions during the 20th century. It is only right that voters should take that into account when considering his abilities as a politician.

</p><p>In Britain, we have a politician called Nick Griffin who claims not to be a Nazi, and claims his "British National Party" is interested only in freedom, democracy and national independence. And yet there are photos of him as a young man, standing under banners saying "White Pride". There's a video of him with the leader of the KKK explaining his election strategy. There's a picture of the former BNP leader wearing a Nazi uniform and standing beside a swastika. Has Griffin really changed? I doubt it.

</p><p>Because of his past, Jones should be treated with equal suspicion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , it seems like this Jones chap actually did claim to be a " radical Communist " , which to my mind is a bit like claiming to be a big admirer of Hitler .
It is hardly a spurious accusation or a McCarthyist witch hunt based on fabricated evidence and leading questions .
Jones openly advocated extreme politics of a sort that killed hundreds of millions during the 20th century .
It is only right that voters should take that into account when considering his abilities as a politician .
In Britain , we have a politician called Nick Griffin who claims not to be a Nazi , and claims his " British National Party " is interested only in freedom , democracy and national independence .
And yet there are photos of him as a young man , standing under banners saying " White Pride " .
There 's a video of him with the leader of the KKK explaining his election strategy .
There 's a picture of the former BNP leader wearing a Nazi uniform and standing beside a swastika .
Has Griffin really changed ?
I doubt it .
Because of his past , Jones should be treated with equal suspicion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, it seems like this Jones chap actually did claim to be a "radical Communist", which to my mind is a bit like claiming to be a big admirer of Hitler.
It is hardly a spurious accusation or a McCarthyist witch hunt based on fabricated evidence and leading questions.
Jones openly advocated extreme politics of a sort that killed hundreds of millions during the 20th century.
It is only right that voters should take that into account when considering his abilities as a politician.
In Britain, we have a politician called Nick Griffin who claims not to be a Nazi, and claims his "British National Party" is interested only in freedom, democracy and national independence.
And yet there are photos of him as a young man, standing under banners saying "White Pride".
There's a video of him with the leader of the KKK explaining his election strategy.
There's a picture of the former BNP leader wearing a Nazi uniform and standing beside a swastika.
Has Griffin really changed?
I doubt it.
Because of his past, Jones should be treated with equal suspicion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047934</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember when conservatism was serious?</title>
	<author>Bat Country</author>
	<datestamp>1257877500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've discovered that the majority of their voters respond best to brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.  Take that how you must.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've discovered that the majority of their voters respond best to brain-dead , cackling circus buffoons .
Take that how you must .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've discovered that the majority of their voters respond best to brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.
Take that how you must.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047628</id>
	<title>Re:Who the fuck is Glenn Beck...</title>
	<author>mcsqueak</author>
	<datestamp>1257876540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Explain what SFW porn is, please.</p></div><p>Looking at the Staples website?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain what SFW porn is , please.Looking at the Staples website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain what SFW porn is, please.Looking at the Staples website?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046146</id>
	<title>So, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.<br>This is awful! Something has to be done about it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.This is awful !
Something has to be done about it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.This is awful!
Something has to be done about it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045948</id>
	<title>Precident-setting?</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1257870420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to. Well done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure 's name , while gracefully ending the joke when it 's done what it 's supposed to .
Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to.
Well done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050220</id>
	<title>Re:Grow up</title>
	<author>otopico</author>
	<datestamp>1257885660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finger pointing in a post about finger pointing is comedy gold.</p><p>Also, how the hell is the parent flamebait?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finger pointing in a post about finger pointing is comedy gold.Also , how the hell is the parent flamebait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finger pointing in a post about finger pointing is comedy gold.Also, how the hell is the parent flamebait?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053334</id>
	<title>Re: born in Kenya</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257856080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp" title="snopes.com">http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp</a> [snopes.com]</p><p>Idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp [ snopes.com ] Idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp [snopes.com]Idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047444</id>
	<title>Re:Random Strawman: not the same as topical eye-po</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the satire Beck actually uses</p></div></blockquote><p>You lost me there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the satire Beck actually usesYou lost me there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the satire Beck actually usesYou lost me there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048654</id>
	<title>ignore the girl</title>
	<author>SethJohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1257879780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care what that girl says, Glenn Beck absolutely did not kill her in 1990. I can't attest to the rape rumors, but the murder is outlandish. I would appreciate it if he was given his day in court to answer the charges rather than become a victim of this media lynch mob.<br> <br>Seth</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care what that girl says , Glenn Beck absolutely did not kill her in 1990 .
I ca n't attest to the rape rumors , but the murder is outlandish .
I would appreciate it if he was given his day in court to answer the charges rather than become a victim of this media lynch mob .
Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care what that girl says, Glenn Beck absolutely did not kill her in 1990.
I can't attest to the rape rumors, but the murder is outlandish.
I would appreciate it if he was given his day in court to answer the charges rather than become a victim of this media lynch mob.
Seth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050894</id>
	<title>Have you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257845400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you denied having sex with farm animals in 2001?</p><p>If not, why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you denied having sex with farm animals in 2001 ? If not , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you denied having sex with farm animals in 2001?If not, why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049310</id>
	<title>SLASHTARD LOGIC\_Anita Dunn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you will all be ok when we put up parody sites featuring you, maybe your mom right?</p><p>Don't worry, we'll start with the names of those who made the ruling and then we'll progress over to other prominent people like say, Obama. From there we'll find your name and post it with child porn, all just a parody of course.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In the end, when they come for you, I will point out the exact location as you crouch down to avoid being hauled off, after all, its the consequences of your thoughts and actions that will do you in, fucking tards.</p><p>P.S. If you hate Beck for telling you what the Liar Media refused to, you wont like the fact that Beck won another one, Anita Dunn is back to sucking the Steeley Dan and is now free to purue her Maoist aspirations!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you will all be ok when we put up parody sites featuring you , maybe your mom right ? Do n't worry , we 'll start with the names of those who made the ruling and then we 'll progress over to other prominent people like say , Obama .
From there we 'll find your name and post it with child porn , all just a parody of course .
      In the end , when they come for you , I will point out the exact location as you crouch down to avoid being hauled off , after all , its the consequences of your thoughts and actions that will do you in , fucking tards.P.S .
If you hate Beck for telling you what the Liar Media refused to , you wont like the fact that Beck won another one , Anita Dunn is back to sucking the Steeley Dan and is now free to purue her Maoist aspirations !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you will all be ok when we put up parody sites featuring you, maybe your mom right?Don't worry, we'll start with the names of those who made the ruling and then we'll progress over to other prominent people like say, Obama.
From there we'll find your name and post it with child porn, all just a parody of course.
      In the end, when they come for you, I will point out the exact location as you crouch down to avoid being hauled off, after all, its the consequences of your thoughts and actions that will do you in, fucking tards.P.S.
If you hate Beck for telling you what the Liar Media refused to, you wont like the fact that Beck won another one, Anita Dunn is back to sucking the Steeley Dan and is now free to purue her Maoist aspirations!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047978</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you have a source for your assertion? I know Beck asks the question about Obama's birth certificate but do you have evidence that Beck still states that Obama was born in Kenya?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have a source for your assertion ?
I know Beck asks the question about Obama 's birth certificate but do you have evidence that Beck still states that Obama was born in Kenya ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have a source for your assertion?
I know Beck asks the question about Obama's birth certificate but do you have evidence that Beck still states that Obama was born in Kenya?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048942</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember when conservatism was serious?</title>
	<author>otopico</author>
	<datestamp>1257880920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those were better times. Well meaning, intelligent people with differing views tried to express those views based on the merit of those views, not by attacking the other guys for being 'evil'.</p><p>Not that things were perfect, but I miss honest conservatives, because although I am liberal, we need true balance to prosper, not the extremist idealism we have been cursed with the last 25 -30  years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were better times .
Well meaning , intelligent people with differing views tried to express those views based on the merit of those views , not by attacking the other guys for being 'evil'.Not that things were perfect , but I miss honest conservatives , because although I am liberal , we need true balance to prosper , not the extremist idealism we have been cursed with the last 25 -30 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those were better times.
Well meaning, intelligent people with differing views tried to express those views based on the merit of those views, not by attacking the other guys for being 'evil'.Not that things were perfect, but I miss honest conservatives, because although I am liberal, we need true balance to prosper, not the extremist idealism we have been cursed with the last 25 -30  years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047632</id>
	<title>Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck</title>
	<author>Danny Rathjens</author>
	<datestamp>1257876540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Glen Beck just made it worse by drawing so much attention to the website and the entire story.</i> <br> <br>A lot more people - including myself - just learned his name.  Isn't that exactly what talking heads want?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glen Beck just made it worse by drawing so much attention to the website and the entire story .
A lot more people - including myself - just learned his name .
Is n't that exactly what talking heads want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glen Beck just made it worse by drawing so much attention to the website and the entire story.
A lot more people - including myself - just learned his name.
Isn't that exactly what talking heads want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048368</id>
	<title>Politics... The modern Colosseum..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."</p><p>- Lazarus Long</p><p>By this basic definition, the US has only one true party left, as both Democrats and Republicans seem to want nothing more than to control our lives, one way or another...</p><p>Fox and CNN just employ the loudest propaganda ministers.. In a civilized society the government wouldn't out-source propaganda this way.. this is yet another sign of the decline of this one. When the "journalists" are no longer a voice of truth, but a voice of "truth as is politically expedient today".. we're all in trouble.</p><p>One may claim that this is an over simplification of the situation we find ourselves in.</p><p>One, may be an idiot.</p><p>For anyone that honestly can't comprehend just how we find ourselves in this almost comical situation, I will guide you to the root cause.</p><p>Whenever something in your life makes little to no sense at all, when the actions of someone you want to respect seem to have turned to the psychotic, look for - and for the love of whatever deity you worship find - the money. Because when all other possibilities have been exhausted, the answer is always money.</p><p>Why would the United State's 'one true party' care so much for control over our lives, from our media consumption, to recreational drug use, to who we may fall in love with? Why have we become a country where we must "show our papers" to buy cold medicine? To travel within our nation's borders?</p><p>Well, this site has never shied from discussing our congress critter's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... almost sexual affection for large media companies and their "rights".. so I won't bother rehashing that..</p><p>The drug issue has been wrapped up in both the theater of "protecting children" and "morality".. Regarding the 'children'.. well, any society that in one breath chants 'protect the children', then imprisons children for taking photos of themselves... as far as 'morality' goes... Well, just reread the previous sentence, and understand that morality, when used this way, is as hypocritical as "protecting the children"...The true motive is the basic "right" of pharmaceutical companies to charge you $100/week for a 'medication' that gives you anal leakage, when eating some garlic and smoking a joint would probably have the same desired effect.</p><p>Regarding the issue of love, or 'gay marriage', the answer is even more simple. The lawyers (who's ranks most congress critters come from) haven't quite figured out how to make money off of 'gay marriage'... yet. Mark my words, as soon as they do, the US will legalize 'gay marriage'. Foaming at the mouth morality police be damned.. The money will come out on top.</p><p>What to do? Hand wringing does nothing. Posting here does less. Why I'm bothering I really don't know.. But, if you want to try to do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. something productive to attempt to remedy this situation.. Vote against all incumbents. Look with clear eyes around you, at how the system is actually 'working', and ignore party with a clear conscious. Impose your own term limit, and if their replacement proves to be just as crooked, vote against them when they come back kissing babies begging for your vote.</p><p>Why you all make this seem so complicated is beyond me.</p><p>Liberty Dogood</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Political tags--such as royalist , communist , democrat , populist , fascist , liberal , conservative , and .
so forth--are never basic criteria .
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire .
The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number .
The latter are surly curmudgeons , suspicious and lacking in altruism .
But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort .
" - Lazarus LongBy this basic definition , the US has only one true party left , as both Democrats and Republicans seem to want nothing more than to control our lives , one way or another...Fox and CNN just employ the loudest propaganda ministers.. In a civilized society the government would n't out-source propaganda this way.. this is yet another sign of the decline of this one .
When the " journalists " are no longer a voice of truth , but a voice of " truth as is politically expedient today " .. we 're all in trouble.One may claim that this is an over simplification of the situation we find ourselves in.One , may be an idiot.For anyone that honestly ca n't comprehend just how we find ourselves in this almost comical situation , I will guide you to the root cause.Whenever something in your life makes little to no sense at all , when the actions of someone you want to respect seem to have turned to the psychotic , look for - and for the love of whatever deity you worship find - the money .
Because when all other possibilities have been exhausted , the answer is always money.Why would the United State 's 'one true party ' care so much for control over our lives , from our media consumption , to recreational drug use , to who we may fall in love with ?
Why have we become a country where we must " show our papers " to buy cold medicine ?
To travel within our nation 's borders ? Well , this site has never shied from discussing our congress critter 's ... almost sexual affection for large media companies and their " rights " .. so I wo n't bother rehashing that..The drug issue has been wrapped up in both the theater of " protecting children " and " morality " .. Regarding the 'children'.. well , any society that in one breath chants 'protect the children ' , then imprisons children for taking photos of themselves... as far as 'morality ' goes... Well , just reread the previous sentence , and understand that morality , when used this way , is as hypocritical as " protecting the children " ...The true motive is the basic " right " of pharmaceutical companies to charge you $ 100/week for a 'medication ' that gives you anal leakage , when eating some garlic and smoking a joint would probably have the same desired effect.Regarding the issue of love , or 'gay marriage ' , the answer is even more simple .
The lawyers ( who 's ranks most congress critters come from ) have n't quite figured out how to make money off of 'gay marriage'... yet. Mark my words , as soon as they do , the US will legalize 'gay marriage' .
Foaming at the mouth morality police be damned.. The money will come out on top.What to do ?
Hand wringing does nothing .
Posting here does less .
Why I 'm bothering I really do n't know.. But , if you want to try to do .. something productive to attempt to remedy this situation.. Vote against all incumbents .
Look with clear eyes around you , at how the system is actually 'working ' , and ignore party with a clear conscious .
Impose your own term limit , and if their replacement proves to be just as crooked , vote against them when they come back kissing babies begging for your vote.Why you all make this seem so complicated is beyond me.Liberty Dogood</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and.
so forth--are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.
The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism.
But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
"- Lazarus LongBy this basic definition, the US has only one true party left, as both Democrats and Republicans seem to want nothing more than to control our lives, one way or another...Fox and CNN just employ the loudest propaganda ministers.. In a civilized society the government wouldn't out-source propaganda this way.. this is yet another sign of the decline of this one.
When the "journalists" are no longer a voice of truth, but a voice of "truth as is politically expedient today".. we're all in trouble.One may claim that this is an over simplification of the situation we find ourselves in.One, may be an idiot.For anyone that honestly can't comprehend just how we find ourselves in this almost comical situation, I will guide you to the root cause.Whenever something in your life makes little to no sense at all, when the actions of someone you want to respect seem to have turned to the psychotic, look for - and for the love of whatever deity you worship find - the money.
Because when all other possibilities have been exhausted, the answer is always money.Why would the United State's 'one true party' care so much for control over our lives, from our media consumption, to recreational drug use, to who we may fall in love with?
Why have we become a country where we must "show our papers" to buy cold medicine?
To travel within our nation's borders?Well, this site has never shied from discussing our congress critter's ... almost sexual affection for large media companies and their "rights".. so I won't bother rehashing that..The drug issue has been wrapped up in both the theater of "protecting children" and "morality".. Regarding the 'children'.. well, any society that in one breath chants 'protect the children', then imprisons children for taking photos of themselves... as far as 'morality' goes... Well, just reread the previous sentence, and understand that morality, when used this way, is as hypocritical as "protecting the children"...The true motive is the basic "right" of pharmaceutical companies to charge you $100/week for a 'medication' that gives you anal leakage, when eating some garlic and smoking a joint would probably have the same desired effect.Regarding the issue of love, or 'gay marriage', the answer is even more simple.
The lawyers (who's ranks most congress critters come from) haven't quite figured out how to make money off of 'gay marriage'... yet. Mark my words, as soon as they do, the US will legalize 'gay marriage'.
Foaming at the mouth morality police be damned.. The money will come out on top.What to do?
Hand wringing does nothing.
Posting here does less.
Why I'm bothering I really don't know.. But, if you want to try to do .. something productive to attempt to remedy this situation.. Vote against all incumbents.
Look with clear eyes around you, at how the system is actually 'working', and ignore party with a clear conscious.
Impose your own term limit, and if their replacement proves to be just as crooked, vote against them when they come back kissing babies begging for your vote.Why you all make this seem so complicated is beyond me.Liberty Dogood</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050778</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Pranadevil2k</author>
	<datestamp>1257844920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To give you an example of what this guy does...<br>He had a congressman on his show who was the first Muslim elected to congress in the US, and asked him to prove that he was not a terrorist. The clip of this interview is on the gb1990.com website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To give you an example of what this guy does...He had a congressman on his show who was the first Muslim elected to congress in the US , and asked him to prove that he was not a terrorist .
The clip of this interview is on the gb1990.com website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To give you an example of what this guy does...He had a congressman on his show who was the first Muslim elected to congress in the US, and asked him to prove that he was not a terrorist.
The clip of this interview is on the gb1990.com website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045872</id>
	<title>icing on the cake:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257870120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tell beck why the results of his arrogance is now something he has in common with barbra streisand. he'll love the comparison</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tell beck why the results of his arrogance is now something he has in common with barbra streisand .
he 'll love the comparisonhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand \ _effect [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tell beck why the results of his arrogance is now something he has in common with barbra streisand.
he'll love the comparisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047300</id>
	<title>Re:"Beck didn't see the humour"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Quit confounding parody and satire with humour.</p></div><p>Confound it! Quit conflating someone who doesn't know the difference between 'conflate' and 'confound' with someone who has anything insightful to say about humor!</p><p>(Unless of course you *intentionally* meant to use 'confounding', in which case this becomes --heh, heh -- a parody of someone who is clueless about how satire and parody works. Whoa...!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit confounding parody and satire with humour.Confound it !
Quit conflating someone who does n't know the difference between 'conflate ' and 'confound ' with someone who has anything insightful to say about humor !
( Unless of course you * intentionally * meant to use 'confounding ' , in which case this becomes --heh , heh -- a parody of someone who is clueless about how satire and parody works .
Whoa... ! )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit confounding parody and satire with humour.Confound it!
Quit conflating someone who doesn't know the difference between 'conflate' and 'confound' with someone who has anything insightful to say about humor!
(Unless of course you *intentionally* meant to use 'confounding', in which case this becomes --heh, heh -- a parody of someone who is clueless about how satire and parody works.
Whoa...!)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050288</id>
	<title>Re:Has the real question been answered?</title>
	<author>Moas</author>
	<datestamp>1257885960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea. ^.~"

You mean like lining up in Red Coats in a straght line, saying, Ready...Aim...FIRE!!! and wondering why they made such good targets?

BTW tea is for sissies.  Coffee!!!! no sugar or cream.  Now that'll put some hair on your chest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They have n't demonstrated any rational thought , as a nation , since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea .
^ . ~ " You mean like lining up in Red Coats in a straght line , saying , Ready...Aim...FIRE ! ! !
and wondering why they made such good targets ?
BTW tea is for sissies .
Coffee ! ! ! ! no sugar or cream .
Now that 'll put some hair on your chest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea.
^.~"

You mean like lining up in Red Coats in a straght line, saying, Ready...Aim...FIRE!!!
and wondering why they made such good targets?
BTW tea is for sissies.
Coffee!!!! no sugar or cream.
Now that'll put some hair on your chest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046482</id>
	<title>Re:Who the fuck is Glenn Beck...</title>
	<author>Suchetha</author>
	<datestamp>1257872580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831503" title="collegehumor.com">THIS</a> [collegehumor.com] of course!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why THIS [ collegehumor.com ] of course !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why THIS [collegehumor.com] of course!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30063166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30057414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30057004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30056614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30062088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30071766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30064868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1432232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049942
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30064868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052218
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048452
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048682
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050288
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051274
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30056614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30057004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052878
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30071766
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048886
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055120
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047910
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30057414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30053890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30063166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30049700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30062088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30052400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30055640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30050818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30051228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046820
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1432232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30045908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30048008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30046482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1432232.30047772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
