<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_15_2239255</id>
	<title>UN Officials Remove Poster Mentioning Chinese Firewall</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258283040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>At a UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum in Egypt, anti-censorship group Open Net Initiative was startled by a demand from UN officials to <a href="http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=F8ADF7C8-1A64-6A71-CE073A625C5A81C3">remove a poster mentioning Chinese Net censorship</a>. When ONI refused the request, security personnel arrived and took away the poster. The group was promoting a new book, <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&amp;tid=12187">Access Controlled</a>, a survey of Internet censorship, filtering, and online surveillance. A witness said, "The poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because of the reference to China and Tibet. We refused, and security guards came and removed it. The incident was witnessed by many." Here is a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-kxYt2LwKc">video of the removal</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At a UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum in Egypt , anti-censorship group Open Net Initiative was startled by a demand from UN officials to remove a poster mentioning Chinese Net censorship .
When ONI refused the request , security personnel arrived and took away the poster .
The group was promoting a new book , Access Controlled , a survey of Internet censorship , filtering , and online surveillance .
A witness said , " The poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because of the reference to China and Tibet .
We refused , and security guards came and removed it .
The incident was witnessed by many .
" Here is a video of the removal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum in Egypt, anti-censorship group Open Net Initiative was startled by a demand from UN officials to remove a poster mentioning Chinese Net censorship.
When ONI refused the request, security personnel arrived and took away the poster.
The group was promoting a new book, Access Controlled, a survey of Internet censorship, filtering, and online surveillance.
A witness said, "The poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because of the reference to China and Tibet.
We refused, and security guards came and removed it.
The incident was witnessed by many.
" Here is a video of the removal.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110352</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to be owed money!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258290360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It brings to mind the old quote, "When You Dance With the Devil, the Devil Don't Change - the Devil Changes You". The fact that we remain silent proves we are a changed country. China is the drug dealer and we can't piss them off because they may cut off our credit and cheap iPods.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It brings to mind the old quote , " When You Dance With the Devil , the Devil Do n't Change - the Devil Changes You " .
The fact that we remain silent proves we are a changed country .
China is the drug dealer and we ca n't piss them off because they may cut off our credit and cheap iPods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It brings to mind the old quote, "When You Dance With the Devil, the Devil Don't Change - the Devil Changes You".
The fact that we remain silent proves we are a changed country.
China is the drug dealer and we can't piss them off because they may cut off our credit and cheap iPods.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111048</id>
	<title>Wilson was the Utopian, not Roosevelt</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1258296900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations was the utopian dream.  The UN was much less that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woodrow Wilson 's League of Nations was the utopian dream .
The UN was much less that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations was the utopian dream.
The UN was much less that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109930</id>
	<title>The UN is not working for us</title>
	<author>qbzzt</author>
	<datestamp>1258287180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UN prefers the interests of member governments over western ideals? I'm shocked! Shocked!</p><p>Seriously, imagine the Republican Party leadership, and/or the Democratic Party leadership, if they never had to stand for elections. How much would they care about our interests? Now, remember that most of the UN doesn't belong to our culture either. Why would a bunch of government employees, mostly from dictatorships of one kind or another, be opposed to censorship?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UN prefers the interests of member governments over western ideals ?
I 'm shocked !
Shocked ! Seriously , imagine the Republican Party leadership , and/or the Democratic Party leadership , if they never had to stand for elections .
How much would they care about our interests ?
Now , remember that most of the UN does n't belong to our culture either .
Why would a bunch of government employees , mostly from dictatorships of one kind or another , be opposed to censorship ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UN prefers the interests of member governments over western ideals?
I'm shocked!
Shocked!Seriously, imagine the Republican Party leadership, and/or the Democratic Party leadership, if they never had to stand for elections.
How much would they care about our interests?
Now, remember that most of the UN doesn't belong to our culture either.
Why would a bunch of government employees, mostly from dictatorships of one kind or another, be opposed to censorship?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111324</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>aspelling</author>
	<datestamp>1258299720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When (Chinese) money talks...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When ( Chinese ) money talks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When (Chinese) money talks...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30122912</id>
	<title>Re:It has become apparent</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1258371300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure you can read so much into it.  After what was this? answer:  a "UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum".</p><p>What was the poster about?  promoting a book.  A book that protested Chinese internet filtering.</p><p>Now - I'm hardly pro-censorship.   However I also don't like to think of every forum designed to talk about how to manage the internet turning into a giant protest rally.   In short order you'll have the whole thing becoming politicised and China refusing to accept packets from Taiwan or Israel firewalling packets from Palestine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's a can of worms we just don't want to open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  let's protest censorship<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but let's not do it in forums where we're trying to sort out nuts and bolts of how to join pipes together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure you can read so much into it .
After what was this ?
answer : a " UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum " .What was the poster about ?
promoting a book .
A book that protested Chinese internet filtering.Now - I 'm hardly pro-censorship .
However I also do n't like to think of every forum designed to talk about how to manage the internet turning into a giant protest rally .
In short order you 'll have the whole thing becoming politicised and China refusing to accept packets from Taiwan or Israel firewalling packets from Palestine ... it 's a can of worms we just do n't want to open ... let 's protest censorship ... but let 's not do it in forums where we 're trying to sort out nuts and bolts of how to join pipes together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure you can read so much into it.
After what was this?
answer:  a "UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum".What was the poster about?
promoting a book.
A book that protested Chinese internet filtering.Now - I'm hardly pro-censorship.
However I also don't like to think of every forum designed to talk about how to manage the internet turning into a giant protest rally.
In short order you'll have the whole thing becoming politicised and China refusing to accept packets from Taiwan or Israel firewalling packets from Palestine ... it's a can of worms we just don't want to open ...  let's protest censorship ... but let's not do it in forums where we're trying to sort out nuts and bolts of how to join pipes together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116814</id>
	<title>Re:Undemocratic?</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1258393620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The UN is a democratic organization</p></div><p>Um, how?  Democracy doesn't just mean voting, it means control by the general population.  The UN isn't controlled directly or indirectly by the general population.  It's controlled by states, some of which are controlled by their citizens and some not.  The UN doesn't care one way or the other.

</p><p>Even if the UN's members were all democratic (so it was indirectly responsible to the people of the world), it wouldn't be particularly democratic itself.  The General Assembly does things by straight vote, yes, but even more detached from actual proportional representation than the US Senate: Antigua gets the same number of votes as India.  And other parts of the UN, like the Security Council, arbitrarily give much more power to some members.

</p><p>So I don't know why you're saying the UN is a democratic organization.  Although I agree that you can have a democracy that's not what we'd think of as a free country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UN is a democratic organizationUm , how ?
Democracy does n't just mean voting , it means control by the general population .
The UN is n't controlled directly or indirectly by the general population .
It 's controlled by states , some of which are controlled by their citizens and some not .
The UN does n't care one way or the other .
Even if the UN 's members were all democratic ( so it was indirectly responsible to the people of the world ) , it would n't be particularly democratic itself .
The General Assembly does things by straight vote , yes , but even more detached from actual proportional representation than the US Senate : Antigua gets the same number of votes as India .
And other parts of the UN , like the Security Council , arbitrarily give much more power to some members .
So I do n't know why you 're saying the UN is a democratic organization .
Although I agree that you can have a democracy that 's not what we 'd think of as a free country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UN is a democratic organizationUm, how?
Democracy doesn't just mean voting, it means control by the general population.
The UN isn't controlled directly or indirectly by the general population.
It's controlled by states, some of which are controlled by their citizens and some not.
The UN doesn't care one way or the other.
Even if the UN's members were all democratic (so it was indirectly responsible to the people of the world), it wouldn't be particularly democratic itself.
The General Assembly does things by straight vote, yes, but even more detached from actual proportional representation than the US Senate: Antigua gets the same number of votes as India.
And other parts of the UN, like the Security Council, arbitrarily give much more power to some members.
So I don't know why you're saying the UN is a democratic organization.
Although I agree that you can have a democracy that's not what we'd think of as a free country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111060</id>
	<title>Just remember!</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1258297020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't spell unethical without UN.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't spell unethical without UN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't spell unethical without UN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114530</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258382700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process. If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.</p></div><p>Get up and get get, get down. The fucking UN is a joke on your planet.</p><p>Who has the real power in the UN? The members of the security council. Everyone else is just along for the ride. They only get to discuss trivial matters, at least in comparison to <em>who will be allowed to make their own decisions</em>. THAT is discussed by the members of the security council, and the others can go piss up a rope. So long as this is true, so long as those with the might are the only ones permitted to decide how the might will be applied, the UN is a big jerkoff fuckwad waste of time. A quick examination of history shows the UN as the second of attempts to power-grab the entire planet, creating a single world government, in wake of the failure of the League of Nations.</p><p>For our next assignment, we will examine the relative military strengths of the members of the security council...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we want to improve it , we need to contribute to the process .
If we refuse to contribute , and then someone in the UN does something stupid , or goes against US foreign policy , we have no room to complain.Get up and get get , get down .
The fucking UN is a joke on your planet.Who has the real power in the UN ?
The members of the security council .
Everyone else is just along for the ride .
They only get to discuss trivial matters , at least in comparison to who will be allowed to make their own decisions .
THAT is discussed by the members of the security council , and the others can go piss up a rope .
So long as this is true , so long as those with the might are the only ones permitted to decide how the might will be applied , the UN is a big jerkoff fuckwad waste of time .
A quick examination of history shows the UN as the second of attempts to power-grab the entire planet , creating a single world government , in wake of the failure of the League of Nations.For our next assignment , we will examine the relative military strengths of the members of the security council.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process.
If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.Get up and get get, get down.
The fucking UN is a joke on your planet.Who has the real power in the UN?
The members of the security council.
Everyone else is just along for the ride.
They only get to discuss trivial matters, at least in comparison to who will be allowed to make their own decisions.
THAT is discussed by the members of the security council, and the others can go piss up a rope.
So long as this is true, so long as those with the might are the only ones permitted to decide how the might will be applied, the UN is a big jerkoff fuckwad waste of time.
A quick examination of history shows the UN as the second of attempts to power-grab the entire planet, creating a single world government, in wake of the failure of the League of Nations.For our next assignment, we will examine the relative military strengths of the members of the security council...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111014</id>
	<title>Re:Which UN policy did the poster contravene?</title>
	<author>ClickOnThis</author>
	<datestamp>1258296540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?</p></div><p>Aside from other reasons mentioned here, perhaps they thought the irony of it lying on the floor gave it more impact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did n't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again , I wonder ? Aside from other reasons mentioned here , perhaps they thought the irony of it lying on the floor gave it more impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?Aside from other reasons mentioned here, perhaps they thought the irony of it lying on the floor gave it more impact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110094</id>
	<title>But you have to admire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258288500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their attempts to expand human rights.  I mean, I'd like the right to free healthcare, free housing, and a minimum standard of living.  Sure I don't know who will actually provide said healthcare, build said housing, or develop said minimum standard of living, but since I have the god given right to it I expect someone to get off their ass and give it to me.  I'm just sooooo glad things like that are on the list when governments can't be bothered to permit something as simple as free speech.<br> <br>

Does anyone really take the U.N. seriously considering who they let in?  And why the fuck are these things "rights"?  Are doctors and contractors going to go to jail if they don't give you these free services?  I realize this is Slashdot, but is anyone actually naive enough to believe we're ever going to achieve some star trekesque utopia without physically removing whatever region of the brain provides free will?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their attempts to expand human rights .
I mean , I 'd like the right to free healthcare , free housing , and a minimum standard of living .
Sure I do n't know who will actually provide said healthcare , build said housing , or develop said minimum standard of living , but since I have the god given right to it I expect someone to get off their ass and give it to me .
I 'm just sooooo glad things like that are on the list when governments ca n't be bothered to permit something as simple as free speech .
Does anyone really take the U.N. seriously considering who they let in ?
And why the fuck are these things " rights " ?
Are doctors and contractors going to go to jail if they do n't give you these free services ?
I realize this is Slashdot , but is anyone actually naive enough to believe we 're ever going to achieve some star trekesque utopia without physically removing whatever region of the brain provides free will ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their attempts to expand human rights.
I mean, I'd like the right to free healthcare, free housing, and a minimum standard of living.
Sure I don't know who will actually provide said healthcare, build said housing, or develop said minimum standard of living, but since I have the god given right to it I expect someone to get off their ass and give it to me.
I'm just sooooo glad things like that are on the list when governments can't be bothered to permit something as simple as free speech.
Does anyone really take the U.N. seriously considering who they let in?
And why the fuck are these things "rights"?
Are doctors and contractors going to go to jail if they don't give you these free services?
I realize this is Slashdot, but is anyone actually naive enough to believe we're ever going to achieve some star trekesque utopia without physically removing whatever region of the brain provides free will?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110808</id>
	<title>Western Ideals?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258294440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The UN prefers the interests of member governments over western ideals?</p></div><p>By western ideals, I take it that you refer to those taught to the kiddies in the U.S. during elementary school, just before lunchtime and after recess. The UN is a loose affiliation of a member governments. It's the governments that pay dues and send representatives. "Human Rights" are a nice idea that people like to talk about when it's convenient, but history shows that U.N. peacekeeping "forces" are sent merely as a political statement and deterrent to mass killing of refugees, and only when it doesn't conflict with the covetous desires of western business interest. (Oh, I meant, "National Security Interest.")
</p><p>Currently in Africa supporting refugees is big business. The U.S. sends subsidized food at many times that cost of providing local farmers with seed, technology and infrastucture necessary to allow them to support themselves, in many countries. Oh, but wait... since refugees have been driven off their land by armed thugs, it would mean that someone would have to wage war against those who created the situation, anyway. And in order to do that the UN, or anyone else, might have to battle the armed forces of a sovereign government. And to what end?
</p><p>The U.S. only wages war where there is an economic pay-off, and they consistently vote against allowing the UN to use lethal force if said force would piss off a potential IMF or World Bank partner/customer/unindicted co-conspirator. And the UN hasn't seen an armed conflict that I'm aware of since Kosovo/Bosnia. The only reason the West backed that was that it was in the backyard of the EU, and none of those nations wanted their own people get the idea that rule-of-law was a flexible for people who look like all the other caucasians. When the resources that belong to a country full of Latinos, Asians, Africans or Occidentals might fall under the rule of someone we don't know and who might support some equitable distribution of wealth to the locals, the U.S. may not support the UN but they aren't above the use of relatively indiscriminate lethal force.
</p><p>By the way, I don't mean to imply that I think the U.S. is any worse than any other industrialized country in this regard. I'm just more disappointed with the behavior of my own country because I have taken the time to poke my nose into it's history. I'm sure there are plenty of dead bodies, skeletons and smoking guns to go around. And with 7 Billion people simmering in the pot, the sauce will be boiling over somewhere else soon.

</p><p> --- Reporter: What do you think of Western civilization, Mr. Ghandi?   Mahtma: It would be a good idea. ---
</p><p> <b>Stay tuned to your local news channel... unless you want to be informed and it's controlled by Murdoch, Berlusconi, GE, Disney, Vivendi, or some 3rd world dictatorship. I wish I could say I thought that the BBC or NPR was all that and a bag of chips, but increasingly I find that the meaningful content takes a backseat to sports and so-called, "Human Interest" pieces.... <i>OH!! The Humanity of it all!!!</i> </b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UN prefers the interests of member governments over western ideals ? By western ideals , I take it that you refer to those taught to the kiddies in the U.S. during elementary school , just before lunchtime and after recess .
The UN is a loose affiliation of a member governments .
It 's the governments that pay dues and send representatives .
" Human Rights " are a nice idea that people like to talk about when it 's convenient , but history shows that U.N. peacekeeping " forces " are sent merely as a political statement and deterrent to mass killing of refugees , and only when it does n't conflict with the covetous desires of western business interest .
( Oh , I meant , " National Security Interest .
" ) Currently in Africa supporting refugees is big business .
The U.S. sends subsidized food at many times that cost of providing local farmers with seed , technology and infrastucture necessary to allow them to support themselves , in many countries .
Oh , but wait... since refugees have been driven off their land by armed thugs , it would mean that someone would have to wage war against those who created the situation , anyway .
And in order to do that the UN , or anyone else , might have to battle the armed forces of a sovereign government .
And to what end ?
The U.S. only wages war where there is an economic pay-off , and they consistently vote against allowing the UN to use lethal force if said force would piss off a potential IMF or World Bank partner/customer/unindicted co-conspirator .
And the UN has n't seen an armed conflict that I 'm aware of since Kosovo/Bosnia .
The only reason the West backed that was that it was in the backyard of the EU , and none of those nations wanted their own people get the idea that rule-of-law was a flexible for people who look like all the other caucasians .
When the resources that belong to a country full of Latinos , Asians , Africans or Occidentals might fall under the rule of someone we do n't know and who might support some equitable distribution of wealth to the locals , the U.S. may not support the UN but they are n't above the use of relatively indiscriminate lethal force .
By the way , I do n't mean to imply that I think the U.S. is any worse than any other industrialized country in this regard .
I 'm just more disappointed with the behavior of my own country because I have taken the time to poke my nose into it 's history .
I 'm sure there are plenty of dead bodies , skeletons and smoking guns to go around .
And with 7 Billion people simmering in the pot , the sauce will be boiling over somewhere else soon .
--- Reporter : What do you think of Western civilization , Mr. Ghandi ? Mahtma : It would be a good idea .
--- Stay tuned to your local news channel... unless you want to be informed and it 's controlled by Murdoch , Berlusconi , GE , Disney , Vivendi , or some 3rd world dictatorship .
I wish I could say I thought that the BBC or NPR was all that and a bag of chips , but increasingly I find that the meaningful content takes a backseat to sports and so-called , " Human Interest " pieces... .
OH ! ! The Humanity of it all ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UN prefers the interests of member governments over western ideals?By western ideals, I take it that you refer to those taught to the kiddies in the U.S. during elementary school, just before lunchtime and after recess.
The UN is a loose affiliation of a member governments.
It's the governments that pay dues and send representatives.
"Human Rights" are a nice idea that people like to talk about when it's convenient, but history shows that U.N. peacekeeping "forces" are sent merely as a political statement and deterrent to mass killing of refugees, and only when it doesn't conflict with the covetous desires of western business interest.
(Oh, I meant, "National Security Interest.
")
Currently in Africa supporting refugees is big business.
The U.S. sends subsidized food at many times that cost of providing local farmers with seed, technology and infrastucture necessary to allow them to support themselves, in many countries.
Oh, but wait... since refugees have been driven off their land by armed thugs, it would mean that someone would have to wage war against those who created the situation, anyway.
And in order to do that the UN, or anyone else, might have to battle the armed forces of a sovereign government.
And to what end?
The U.S. only wages war where there is an economic pay-off, and they consistently vote against allowing the UN to use lethal force if said force would piss off a potential IMF or World Bank partner/customer/unindicted co-conspirator.
And the UN hasn't seen an armed conflict that I'm aware of since Kosovo/Bosnia.
The only reason the West backed that was that it was in the backyard of the EU, and none of those nations wanted their own people get the idea that rule-of-law was a flexible for people who look like all the other caucasians.
When the resources that belong to a country full of Latinos, Asians, Africans or Occidentals might fall under the rule of someone we don't know and who might support some equitable distribution of wealth to the locals, the U.S. may not support the UN but they aren't above the use of relatively indiscriminate lethal force.
By the way, I don't mean to imply that I think the U.S. is any worse than any other industrialized country in this regard.
I'm just more disappointed with the behavior of my own country because I have taken the time to poke my nose into it's history.
I'm sure there are plenty of dead bodies, skeletons and smoking guns to go around.
And with 7 Billion people simmering in the pot, the sauce will be boiling over somewhere else soon.
--- Reporter: What do you think of Western civilization, Mr. Ghandi?   Mahtma: It would be a good idea.
---
 Stay tuned to your local news channel... unless you want to be informed and it's controlled by Murdoch, Berlusconi, GE, Disney, Vivendi, or some 3rd world dictatorship.
I wish I could say I thought that the BBC or NPR was all that and a bag of chips, but increasingly I find that the meaningful content takes a backseat to sports and so-called, "Human Interest" pieces....
OH!! The Humanity of it all!!
! 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116924</id>
	<title>Re:It has become apparent</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1258393980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naturally. There's no other possible explanation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naturally .
There 's no other possible explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naturally.
There's no other possible explanation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110216</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258289400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Josh04 is right; it doesn't exist to exert and expand *UN* control.</p><p>Actually, it exists to make the exercise of unbridled power a trifle less inhumane and a great deal cheaper.  Basically, it works like this.  Imagine we have a country that is so powerful that it can do anything it fricken' wants to and nobody can stop it.  Let's call our imaginary country "Upper Slobovia".  US decides it wants something to happen.  It could go to war, but instead the UN security council sits down and "debates" the US wishes.  In the ideal scenario, they make a resolution that amounts to this: let's just pretend we've already had the war and move on.   That's why the UN works so much better than the League of Nations; it doesn't try to enforce *peace*, it just allows wars to be conducted in a less picturesque way (which is why people fond of the picturesque aspects of war hate the UN).</p><p>Of course, sometimes the security council can't agree to pretend the war has already happened.  Then they vote for a different kind of resolution, one that they can pretend does not authorize an actual physical invasion, but US pretends *does*.  The invasion proceeds, but the war does not spread to other countries, who have taken the stand in Security Council resolution so-and-so that the party of the first part can invade *only* pursuant to the terms set down in article 22-b. These terms, translated into dozens of different languages' versions of diplomatese clearly state that US can't invade except under conditions were a reasonable country would judge invasion to be a better option than not invading, and since we're all reasonable countries (excepting US) that's clearly a stand *against*.   Even though this scenario is less desirable than the "pretend we had the war and move on" one, it is *still* and improvement on the League of Nations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Josh04 is right ; it does n't exist to exert and expand * UN * control.Actually , it exists to make the exercise of unbridled power a trifle less inhumane and a great deal cheaper .
Basically , it works like this .
Imagine we have a country that is so powerful that it can do anything it fricken ' wants to and nobody can stop it .
Let 's call our imaginary country " Upper Slobovia " .
US decides it wants something to happen .
It could go to war , but instead the UN security council sits down and " debates " the US wishes .
In the ideal scenario , they make a resolution that amounts to this : let 's just pretend we 've already had the war and move on .
That 's why the UN works so much better than the League of Nations ; it does n't try to enforce * peace * , it just allows wars to be conducted in a less picturesque way ( which is why people fond of the picturesque aspects of war hate the UN ) .Of course , sometimes the security council ca n't agree to pretend the war has already happened .
Then they vote for a different kind of resolution , one that they can pretend does not authorize an actual physical invasion , but US pretends * does * .
The invasion proceeds , but the war does not spread to other countries , who have taken the stand in Security Council resolution so-and-so that the party of the first part can invade * only * pursuant to the terms set down in article 22-b .
These terms , translated into dozens of different languages ' versions of diplomatese clearly state that US ca n't invade except under conditions were a reasonable country would judge invasion to be a better option than not invading , and since we 're all reasonable countries ( excepting US ) that 's clearly a stand * against * .
Even though this scenario is less desirable than the " pretend we had the war and move on " one , it is * still * and improvement on the League of Nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Josh04 is right; it doesn't exist to exert and expand *UN* control.Actually, it exists to make the exercise of unbridled power a trifle less inhumane and a great deal cheaper.
Basically, it works like this.
Imagine we have a country that is so powerful that it can do anything it fricken' wants to and nobody can stop it.
Let's call our imaginary country "Upper Slobovia".
US decides it wants something to happen.
It could go to war, but instead the UN security council sits down and "debates" the US wishes.
In the ideal scenario, they make a resolution that amounts to this: let's just pretend we've already had the war and move on.
That's why the UN works so much better than the League of Nations; it doesn't try to enforce *peace*, it just allows wars to be conducted in a less picturesque way (which is why people fond of the picturesque aspects of war hate the UN).Of course, sometimes the security council can't agree to pretend the war has already happened.
Then they vote for a different kind of resolution, one that they can pretend does not authorize an actual physical invasion, but US pretends *does*.
The invasion proceeds, but the war does not spread to other countries, who have taken the stand in Security Council resolution so-and-so that the party of the first part can invade *only* pursuant to the terms set down in article 22-b.
These terms, translated into dozens of different languages' versions of diplomatese clearly state that US can't invade except under conditions were a reasonable country would judge invasion to be a better option than not invading, and since we're all reasonable countries (excepting US) that's clearly a stand *against*.
Even though this scenario is less desirable than the "pretend we had the war and move on" one, it is *still* and improvement on the League of Nations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112236</id>
	<title>Re:Oh the UN is such a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258309680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha, that sounds like a good plan for starting World War 3....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha , that sounds like a good plan for starting World War 3... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha, that sounds like a good plan for starting World War 3....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111896</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1258305360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane. All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...'</i></p><p>To say nothing of the permanent members of the Security Council.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane .
All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...'To say nothing of the permanent members of the Security Council .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane.
All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...'To say nothing of the permanent members of the Security Council.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109952</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1258287360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like the rest of the world, the U.N. would like to think that China and their human rights abuses don't exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the rest of the world , the U.N. would like to think that China and their human rights abuses do n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the rest of the world, the U.N. would like to think that China and their human rights abuses don't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110150</id>
	<title>Those unofficials removes are a bitch</title>
	<author>aflag</author>
	<datestamp>1258288920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, why are they even allowed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , why are they even allowed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, why are they even allowed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110454</id>
	<title>Undemocratic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258291080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event... "</p><p>The UN is a democratic organization and this act of censorship is completely democratic. It's wrong, but democratic.</p><p>That should be a lesson to those that confuse freedom and democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event... " The UN is a democratic organization and this act of censorship is completely democratic .
It 's wrong , but democratic.That should be a lesson to those that confuse freedom and democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event... "The UN is a democratic organization and this act of censorship is completely democratic.
It's wrong, but democratic.That should be a lesson to those that confuse freedom and democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110538</id>
	<title>Poster's Removal is an Admission of Guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258291620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seemingly, the poster was removed because it ostensibly violated a rule prohibiting posters that depict or mention human rights abuses.  The part of the poster that ostensibly violates this rule is the mention of the Great Firewall.  Thus, there is the obvious admission by whoever demanded the poster's removal, that the Great Firewall constitutes an abuse of human rights.  The poster itself does not suggest or imply that it is a human rights violation, nearly so much as the poster's removal does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seemingly , the poster was removed because it ostensibly violated a rule prohibiting posters that depict or mention human rights abuses .
The part of the poster that ostensibly violates this rule is the mention of the Great Firewall .
Thus , there is the obvious admission by whoever demanded the poster 's removal , that the Great Firewall constitutes an abuse of human rights .
The poster itself does not suggest or imply that it is a human rights violation , nearly so much as the poster 's removal does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seemingly, the poster was removed because it ostensibly violated a rule prohibiting posters that depict or mention human rights abuses.
The part of the poster that ostensibly violates this rule is the mention of the Great Firewall.
Thus, there is the obvious admission by whoever demanded the poster's removal, that the Great Firewall constitutes an abuse of human rights.
The poster itself does not suggest or imply that it is a human rights violation, nearly so much as the poster's removal does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112316</id>
	<title>I've seen this firsthand.</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1258310580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years ago, as a student, I got to go visit the UN's Geneva campus, sponsored by one of the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that has a presence at the UN. While I was there, I got to go sit in on one of the meetings regarding the formation of the Human Rights Commission. (Committee? Council? I can't remember.) During the meeting, representatives from one of the other NGOs in attendance started to hand out flyers encouraging action in Darfur.</p><p>The representative from Sudan was not pleased with this, to say the least, and demanded they cease distributing the flyers. The NGO in question was informed that they were not to do that, and that they'd be removed if they continued to do so.</p><p>The UN is a farce when it comes to doing anything useful about human rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago , as a student , I got to go visit the UN 's Geneva campus , sponsored by one of the various non-governmental organizations ( NGOs ) that has a presence at the UN .
While I was there , I got to go sit in on one of the meetings regarding the formation of the Human Rights Commission .
( Committee ? Council ?
I ca n't remember .
) During the meeting , representatives from one of the other NGOs in attendance started to hand out flyers encouraging action in Darfur.The representative from Sudan was not pleased with this , to say the least , and demanded they cease distributing the flyers .
The NGO in question was informed that they were not to do that , and that they 'd be removed if they continued to do so.The UN is a farce when it comes to doing anything useful about human rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago, as a student, I got to go visit the UN's Geneva campus, sponsored by one of the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that has a presence at the UN.
While I was there, I got to go sit in on one of the meetings regarding the formation of the Human Rights Commission.
(Committee? Council?
I can't remember.
) During the meeting, representatives from one of the other NGOs in attendance started to hand out flyers encouraging action in Darfur.The representative from Sudan was not pleased with this, to say the least, and demanded they cease distributing the flyers.
The NGO in question was informed that they were not to do that, and that they'd be removed if they continued to do so.The UN is a farce when it comes to doing anything useful about human rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111662</id>
	<title>Since when is bureaucracy growing "theory"</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1258302480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories.</i></p><p>What "theory" is that?  I didn't say just the UN, I said all organizations by nature grow as much as they can.  Do you deny this to be the case?  If so I maintain you've never worked in a company larger than three people.</p><p><i>Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity</i></p><p>Which bolsters my theory since organizations stupidly just grow larger even when it is not healthy to do so.  The peter principal applies to groups equally as well as individuals, at one point the U.N. had a real purpose but they have grown far beyond that now.</p><p><i>If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process.</i></p><p>Otherwise known as "appeasement".  Let's just ignoring dying protestors in Iran and locked up dissidents in China!  Eventually they will just suddenly realize how wrong they were, just like a sitcom!</p><p>History has shown those taking this path...  chose poorly.</p><p><i>And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how?</i></p><p>Apathy would be awesome since it would imply not supporting them.   Sadly, we have moved away from apathy and in the wrong direction.  Pretending like it's OK China and other nations with terrible records are where they are in the U.N. is far from doing anything to improve things from the inside, it's merely providing justification for them being there since we are willing to accept their "leadership" on the matter.</p><p>You, like Obama, understand nothing of large group and international dynamics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories.What " theory " is that ?
I did n't say just the UN , I said all organizations by nature grow as much as they can .
Do you deny this to be the case ?
If so I maintain you 've never worked in a company larger than three people.Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidityWhich bolsters my theory since organizations stupidly just grow larger even when it is not healthy to do so .
The peter principal applies to groups equally as well as individuals , at one point the U.N. had a real purpose but they have grown far beyond that now.If we want to improve it , we need to contribute to the process.Otherwise known as " appeasement " .
Let 's just ignoring dying protestors in Iran and locked up dissidents in China !
Eventually they will just suddenly realize how wrong they were , just like a sitcom ! History has shown those taking this path... chose poorly.And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how ? Apathy would be awesome since it would imply not supporting them .
Sadly , we have moved away from apathy and in the wrong direction .
Pretending like it 's OK China and other nations with terrible records are where they are in the U.N. is far from doing anything to improve things from the inside , it 's merely providing justification for them being there since we are willing to accept their " leadership " on the matter.You , like Obama , understand nothing of large group and international dynamics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories.What "theory" is that?
I didn't say just the UN, I said all organizations by nature grow as much as they can.
Do you deny this to be the case?
If so I maintain you've never worked in a company larger than three people.Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidityWhich bolsters my theory since organizations stupidly just grow larger even when it is not healthy to do so.
The peter principal applies to groups equally as well as individuals, at one point the U.N. had a real purpose but they have grown far beyond that now.If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process.Otherwise known as "appeasement".
Let's just ignoring dying protestors in Iran and locked up dissidents in China!
Eventually they will just suddenly realize how wrong they were, just like a sitcom!History has shown those taking this path...  chose poorly.And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how?Apathy would be awesome since it would imply not supporting them.
Sadly, we have moved away from apathy and in the wrong direction.
Pretending like it's OK China and other nations with terrible records are where they are in the U.N. is far from doing anything to improve things from the inside, it's merely providing justification for them being there since we are willing to accept their "leadership" on the matter.You, like Obama, understand nothing of large group and international dynamics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112398</id>
	<title>Re:A failure from the beginning</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1258311900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how any of this was FDR's failure.  He and Churchill knew full well back in 1942-43 that they would likely be entering some sort of conflict with the Soviets after Germany was defeated.  Apparently war planners on both sides of the Atlantic were working on plans for WWIII, though in the end it never came to pass.  So clearly FDR was not ignorant of the substantial risk that Uncle Joe would be, particularly when the Germans were defeated and the Red Army controlled a vast chunk of Eastern and Central Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how any of this was FDR 's failure .
He and Churchill knew full well back in 1942-43 that they would likely be entering some sort of conflict with the Soviets after Germany was defeated .
Apparently war planners on both sides of the Atlantic were working on plans for WWIII , though in the end it never came to pass .
So clearly FDR was not ignorant of the substantial risk that Uncle Joe would be , particularly when the Germans were defeated and the Red Army controlled a vast chunk of Eastern and Central Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how any of this was FDR's failure.
He and Churchill knew full well back in 1942-43 that they would likely be entering some sort of conflict with the Soviets after Germany was defeated.
Apparently war planners on both sides of the Atlantic were working on plans for WWIII, though in the end it never came to pass.
So clearly FDR was not ignorant of the substantial risk that Uncle Joe would be, particularly when the Germans were defeated and the Red Army controlled a vast chunk of Eastern and Central Europe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114010</id>
	<title>UN vs You Tube?</title>
	<author>kenbo0422</author>
	<datestamp>1258377300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder when the U.N. is going to try to make You Tube take down that video??</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder when the U.N. is going to try to make You Tube take down that video ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder when the U.N. is going to try to make You Tube take down that video?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110646</id>
	<title>They'll regret it....</title>
	<author>Abuzar</author>
	<datestamp>1258292820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Day's gonna come when those assholes'll a'gonna pay for it big time!<br>You just watch, fate's gotta way o'tearin' opressors assholes longer than the Chinese wall!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Day 's gon na come when those assholes 'll a'gon na pay for it big time ! You just watch , fate 's got ta way o'tearin ' opressors assholes longer than the Chinese wall !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Day's gonna come when those assholes'll a'gonna pay for it big time!You just watch, fate's gotta way o'tearin' opressors assholes longer than the Chinese wall!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111194</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258298820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My two cents:</p><p>1. Corporation America loves cheap labor. The Chinese government is their best friend.</p><p>2. The American people like Walmart, as long as someone else loses their job.</p><p>3. The long history of the imperial system in China has made many to believe in the exploitation of others. For the few powerful, the mass are just their resources. The tragedy is, the dream of the powerless is to become the powerful, instead of changing the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My two cents : 1 .
Corporation America loves cheap labor .
The Chinese government is their best friend.2 .
The American people like Walmart , as long as someone else loses their job.3 .
The long history of the imperial system in China has made many to believe in the exploitation of others .
For the few powerful , the mass are just their resources .
The tragedy is , the dream of the powerless is to become the powerful , instead of changing the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My two cents:1.
Corporation America loves cheap labor.
The Chinese government is their best friend.2.
The American people like Walmart, as long as someone else loses their job.3.
The long history of the imperial system in China has made many to believe in the exploitation of others.
For the few powerful, the mass are just their resources.
The tragedy is, the dream of the powerless is to become the powerful, instead of changing the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112192</id>
	<title>Execpt, that's not what happened.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258309140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it at all possible that rather than it being "anti-censorship", it was simply that they didn't want someone trying to hawk merchandise?  Is it possible that the witness jumped to a conclusion and filled in the details for what he thought was a reason?</p><p>I noticed in the video that the room didn't have any other posters advertising anything.</p></div><p>The word 'Tibet' came up in the conversation, to which the author responds that the word isn't even printed on the poster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it at all possible that rather than it being " anti-censorship " , it was simply that they did n't want someone trying to hawk merchandise ?
Is it possible that the witness jumped to a conclusion and filled in the details for what he thought was a reason ? I noticed in the video that the room did n't have any other posters advertising anything.The word 'Tibet ' came up in the conversation , to which the author responds that the word is n't even printed on the poster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it at all possible that rather than it being "anti-censorship", it was simply that they didn't want someone trying to hawk merchandise?
Is it possible that the witness jumped to a conclusion and filled in the details for what he thought was a reason?I noticed in the video that the room didn't have any other posters advertising anything.The word 'Tibet' came up in the conversation, to which the author responds that the word isn't even printed on the poster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110480</id>
	<title>Re:But you have to admire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258291320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yup. The fact is it takes a lot more in a person to pick up a gun and earn living. Provide equal opportunity for everyone, make pay differences more tolerable, and you'll have enough doctors and contractors to go around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yup .
The fact is it takes a lot more in a person to pick up a gun and earn living .
Provide equal opportunity for everyone , make pay differences more tolerable , and you 'll have enough doctors and contractors to go around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yup.
The fact is it takes a lot more in a person to pick up a gun and earn living.
Provide equal opportunity for everyone, make pay differences more tolerable, and you'll have enough doctors and contractors to go around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113238</id>
	<title>for you</title>
	<author>lorry123</author>
	<datestamp>1258366620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WOWOWOWOWO.when you look at the beautiful woman,are you excited now and do you want

to do something?,Gus,there is a convenient way to make you meet some women who are alone
======Matchcougar.com=====to make you meet some rich and lonely woman to go with you
you just enter ======Matchcougar.com=====,and it is OK.BE FREE</htmltext>
<tokenext>WOWOWOWOWO.when you look at the beautiful woman,are you excited now and do you want to do something ? ,Gus,there is a convenient way to make you meet some women who are alone = = = = = = Matchcougar.com = = = = = to make you meet some rich and lonely woman to go with you you just enter = = = = = = Matchcougar.com = = = = = ,and it is OK.BE FREE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WOWOWOWOWO.when you look at the beautiful woman,are you excited now and do you want

to do something?,Gus,there is a convenient way to make you meet some women who are alone
======Matchcougar.com=====to make you meet some rich and lonely woman to go with you
you just enter ======Matchcougar.com=====,and it is OK.BE FREE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111750</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simon and Garfunkel actually sang a song about you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simon and Garfunkel actually sang a song about you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simon and Garfunkel actually sang a song about you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112478</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1258312920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it OK that, once, China could be called out on its horrible record without mentioning in the same breath that the United States is worse, much worse?  Seriously, this phenomenon is like a disease.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it OK that , once , China could be called out on its horrible record without mentioning in the same breath that the United States is worse , much worse ?
Seriously , this phenomenon is like a disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it OK that, once, China could be called out on its horrible record without mentioning in the same breath that the United States is worse, much worse?
Seriously, this phenomenon is like a disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110146</id>
	<title>was witnessed by many</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258288920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prove it.</p><p>No, i wasn't kidding. One of the dangers of having governmental entities in control of information, and most of it being recorded only digitally: "facts" are a variable commodity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prove it.No , i was n't kidding .
One of the dangers of having governmental entities in control of information , and most of it being recorded only digitally : " facts " are a variable commodity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prove it.No, i wasn't kidding.
One of the dangers of having governmental entities in control of information, and most of it being recorded only digitally: "facts" are a variable commodity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110706</id>
	<title>mall cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258293420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>malls cops won't let you set up a stand in a mall... unless you pay rent and sign an agreement.<br>Maybe these guys didn't do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>malls cops wo n't let you set up a stand in a mall... unless you pay rent and sign an agreement.Maybe these guys did n't do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>malls cops won't let you set up a stand in a mall... unless you pay rent and sign an agreement.Maybe these guys didn't do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113296</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>KiloByte</author>
	<datestamp>1258367460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except in China's case that 100\% lip service, and actively working -- yes, they are, in the other direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except in China 's case that 100 \ % lip service , and actively working -- yes , they are , in the other direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except in China's case that 100\% lip service, and actively working -- yes, they are, in the other direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109864</id>
	<title>But hey...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258286820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UN would be better than ICANN, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UN would be better than ICANN , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UN would be better than ICANN, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322</id>
	<title>Oh the UN is such a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258290120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roosevelt's compromise to have ALL the countries in the United Nations wrecked it from day 1.  The only way you can have a real UN is to have a league of democracies.  The only way we would have a genuine and meaningful UN would be to have something like an EU + USA + Canada + Australia, and leave Asia and Africa out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roosevelt 's compromise to have ALL the countries in the United Nations wrecked it from day 1 .
The only way you can have a real UN is to have a league of democracies .
The only way we would have a genuine and meaningful UN would be to have something like an EU + USA + Canada + Australia , and leave Asia and Africa out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roosevelt's compromise to have ALL the countries in the United Nations wrecked it from day 1.
The only way you can have a real UN is to have a league of democracies.
The only way we would have a genuine and meaningful UN would be to have something like an EU + USA + Canada + Australia, and leave Asia and Africa out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111826</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258304460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>limited to no freedom of speech:</p><p>My impression is that the Chinese can pretty well say what they want, as long as it does not threaten the one-party rule.</p><p>As far as child labor is concerned, I was not so sure, so I googled a bit.  It appears that the national government is down on child labor (under 16), but local governments often turn a blind eye.</p><p>Here is my reference:</p><p><a href="http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889" title="china-labour.org.hk">http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889</a> [china-labour.org.hk]</p><p>As various sources within the Chinese media have pointed out, documenting occupational health and safety problems among child labourers is inherently difficult because Chinese labour law bans child labour. One newly passed regulation makes the hiring of a minor punishable by a fine of 5000 Yuan per worker (cumulative per month of employ) and suspension of the employer's operating license. Other laws criminalize the placing of underage workers in potentially hazardous situations and forced bonding of a child for the purpose of labour (3). The problem lies not so much with regulation but lack of enforcement. Indeed, despite stiffer penalties, the problem of child labour has only become more serious in recent years. A growing economy coupled with a growing economic disparity provides a fertile ground for exploitation of societies most vulnerable members. Local governments, in a headlong rush to woo manufacturers into their districts are often reticent to enforce regulations against child labour, which might act as an impediment to local economic growth.</p><p>The problem of juvenile labour in China is far too multifaceted to be summarized in black and white terms. To address these complexities, we suggest that further and deeper studies into the root causes of the problem be carried out. We see these root causes as being a growing economic disparity in China, a rapidly changing social structure, and a failure of the Chinese educational system to provide adequate and affordable education to all children. Until these issues are addressed, it is our belief that the problem of child labour in China will continue to grow, and as it does incidents involving the injury and death of juvenile workers will continue. (4)</p><p>freedom of religion:  I googled that.  Here is an interesting article: <a href="http://www.religiousfreedom.com/wrpt/Chinarpt.htm" title="religiousfreedom.com">http://www.religiousfreedom.com/wrpt/Chinarpt.htm</a> [religiousfreedom.com]</p><p>Not a good situation, but I think the statement no freedom of worship goes too far.  But the Chinese government has rules, and we do too (for instance, tax exempt status requirements),  The difference is that the IRS does not kill you.  Perhaps from the wikipedia article, I note that the official complaint about the Roman Catholic church is not different than one that was popular in the US.  Then, again, you may be too young to remember the JFK election campaign.  Still, it would seem that the real issue is the role of the Roman Catholic church in the events leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union.</p><p>middle class:  I guess the Chinese now have more millionaires than the US.  I suspect the middle class is developing nicely too.</p><p>I am not sure how to classify the Chinese economy, but I suspect a lot of the problems come from the process of accumulation.  Communist, socialist, or capitialist accumulation has not been pretty.  It does not have to be that way, IMO,  but the emperically the historical record is pretty clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>limited to no freedom of speech : My impression is that the Chinese can pretty well say what they want , as long as it does not threaten the one-party rule.As far as child labor is concerned , I was not so sure , so I googled a bit .
It appears that the national government is down on child labor ( under 16 ) , but local governments often turn a blind eye.Here is my reference : http : //www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889 [ china-labour.org.hk ] As various sources within the Chinese media have pointed out , documenting occupational health and safety problems among child labourers is inherently difficult because Chinese labour law bans child labour .
One newly passed regulation makes the hiring of a minor punishable by a fine of 5000 Yuan per worker ( cumulative per month of employ ) and suspension of the employer 's operating license .
Other laws criminalize the placing of underage workers in potentially hazardous situations and forced bonding of a child for the purpose of labour ( 3 ) .
The problem lies not so much with regulation but lack of enforcement .
Indeed , despite stiffer penalties , the problem of child labour has only become more serious in recent years .
A growing economy coupled with a growing economic disparity provides a fertile ground for exploitation of societies most vulnerable members .
Local governments , in a headlong rush to woo manufacturers into their districts are often reticent to enforce regulations against child labour , which might act as an impediment to local economic growth.The problem of juvenile labour in China is far too multifaceted to be summarized in black and white terms .
To address these complexities , we suggest that further and deeper studies into the root causes of the problem be carried out .
We see these root causes as being a growing economic disparity in China , a rapidly changing social structure , and a failure of the Chinese educational system to provide adequate and affordable education to all children .
Until these issues are addressed , it is our belief that the problem of child labour in China will continue to grow , and as it does incidents involving the injury and death of juvenile workers will continue .
( 4 ) freedom of religion : I googled that .
Here is an interesting article : http : //www.religiousfreedom.com/wrpt/Chinarpt.htm [ religiousfreedom.com ] Not a good situation , but I think the statement no freedom of worship goes too far .
But the Chinese government has rules , and we do too ( for instance , tax exempt status requirements ) , The difference is that the IRS does not kill you .
Perhaps from the wikipedia article , I note that the official complaint about the Roman Catholic church is not different than one that was popular in the US .
Then , again , you may be too young to remember the JFK election campaign .
Still , it would seem that the real issue is the role of the Roman Catholic church in the events leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union.middle class : I guess the Chinese now have more millionaires than the US .
I suspect the middle class is developing nicely too.I am not sure how to classify the Chinese economy , but I suspect a lot of the problems come from the process of accumulation .
Communist , socialist , or capitialist accumulation has not been pretty .
It does not have to be that way , IMO , but the emperically the historical record is pretty clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>limited to no freedom of speech:My impression is that the Chinese can pretty well say what they want, as long as it does not threaten the one-party rule.As far as child labor is concerned, I was not so sure, so I googled a bit.
It appears that the national government is down on child labor (under 16), but local governments often turn a blind eye.Here is my reference:http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889 [china-labour.org.hk]As various sources within the Chinese media have pointed out, documenting occupational health and safety problems among child labourers is inherently difficult because Chinese labour law bans child labour.
One newly passed regulation makes the hiring of a minor punishable by a fine of 5000 Yuan per worker (cumulative per month of employ) and suspension of the employer's operating license.
Other laws criminalize the placing of underage workers in potentially hazardous situations and forced bonding of a child for the purpose of labour (3).
The problem lies not so much with regulation but lack of enforcement.
Indeed, despite stiffer penalties, the problem of child labour has only become more serious in recent years.
A growing economy coupled with a growing economic disparity provides a fertile ground for exploitation of societies most vulnerable members.
Local governments, in a headlong rush to woo manufacturers into their districts are often reticent to enforce regulations against child labour, which might act as an impediment to local economic growth.The problem of juvenile labour in China is far too multifaceted to be summarized in black and white terms.
To address these complexities, we suggest that further and deeper studies into the root causes of the problem be carried out.
We see these root causes as being a growing economic disparity in China, a rapidly changing social structure, and a failure of the Chinese educational system to provide adequate and affordable education to all children.
Until these issues are addressed, it is our belief that the problem of child labour in China will continue to grow, and as it does incidents involving the injury and death of juvenile workers will continue.
(4)freedom of religion:  I googled that.
Here is an interesting article: http://www.religiousfreedom.com/wrpt/Chinarpt.htm [religiousfreedom.com]Not a good situation, but I think the statement no freedom of worship goes too far.
But the Chinese government has rules, and we do too (for instance, tax exempt status requirements),  The difference is that the IRS does not kill you.
Perhaps from the wikipedia article, I note that the official complaint about the Roman Catholic church is not different than one that was popular in the US.
Then, again, you may be too young to remember the JFK election campaign.
Still, it would seem that the real issue is the role of the Roman Catholic church in the events leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union.middle class:  I guess the Chinese now have more millionaires than the US.
I suspect the middle class is developing nicely too.I am not sure how to classify the Chinese economy, but I suspect a lot of the problems come from the process of accumulation.
Communist, socialist, or capitialist accumulation has not been pretty.
It does not have to be that way, IMO,  but the emperically the historical record is pretty clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109914</id>
	<title>Places not to hold an Internet Governance Forum</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1258287120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet\_blackholes\_en.png" title="wikimedia.org">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet\_blackholes\_en.png</a> [wikimedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet \ _blackholes \ _en.png [ wikimedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet\_blackholes\_en.png [wikimedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110686</id>
	<title>Re:Can I spell hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1258293180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you think he was asking for help?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you think he was asking for help ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you think he was asking for help?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111008</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258296480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane. All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...</p></div><p>UN Human Rights panel - as any other part of UN - is entirely irrelevant. The <em>only</em> part of UN that has any relevance whatsoever is the Security Council, and even then only the members that have veto rights. You all know what those are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane .
All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...UN Human Rights panel - as any other part of UN - is entirely irrelevant .
The only part of UN that has any relevance whatsoever is the Security Council , and even then only the members that have veto rights .
You all know what those are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane.
All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...UN Human Rights panel - as any other part of UN - is entirely irrelevant.
The only part of UN that has any relevance whatsoever is the Security Council, and even then only the members that have veto rights.
You all know what those are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30124532</id>
	<title>Re:Wake up - China is NOT your friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And neither is the United States.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And neither is the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And neither is the United States.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110452</id>
	<title>A failure from the beginning</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1258291080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roosevelt's failure was that he actually thought utopia was possible. Only four years after WWII, the Soviet Union... one of the <i>Security Council members</i>... was bankrolling and assisting a campaign of conquest in Asia, starting with Korea.</p><p>The reason why utopias do not work, and can never work, is their ignorance of human nature. You can't change it, and you can't get rid of it, and in governments, national policies are the instruments of human nature. You can no more "eliminate" war than you can eliminate any other force of nature. You can only do your best to be prepared for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roosevelt 's failure was that he actually thought utopia was possible .
Only four years after WWII , the Soviet Union... one of the Security Council members... was bankrolling and assisting a campaign of conquest in Asia , starting with Korea.The reason why utopias do not work , and can never work , is their ignorance of human nature .
You ca n't change it , and you ca n't get rid of it , and in governments , national policies are the instruments of human nature .
You can no more " eliminate " war than you can eliminate any other force of nature .
You can only do your best to be prepared for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roosevelt's failure was that he actually thought utopia was possible.
Only four years after WWII, the Soviet Union... one of the Security Council members... was bankrolling and assisting a campaign of conquest in Asia, starting with Korea.The reason why utopias do not work, and can never work, is their ignorance of human nature.
You can't change it, and you can't get rid of it, and in governments, national policies are the instruments of human nature.
You can no more "eliminate" war than you can eliminate any other force of nature.
You can only do your best to be prepared for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110252</id>
	<title>Wake up - China is NOT your friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258289700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will the rest of the world wake up and realize that China is NOT your friend?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will the rest of the world wake up and realize that China is NOT your friend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will the rest of the world wake up and realize that China is NOT your friend?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110644</id>
	<title>Re:Oh the UN is such a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258292820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you kiddin' right? since when the US theocracy is a democracy? in your democracy people is being jailed for nothing, besides the fact that your congresspeople is getting into the vocabulary bussiness: Now they want to redefine (please read 'specify') what torture is. They insist that half-drowning and sleep-deprived confessions are not 'torture'. I'd love to see how would they react if such 'non-torture' is applied to them, or even better, to their children or their elder parents.</p><p>Please, pretty please, until the day the US (not 'americans', this continent is not yours alone ppl) closes guantanamo and the base they just opened in colombia (shame on uribe for being a pawn for your country), and all the rest of the military presence in middle east is withdrawn please don't talk of democracy. The US is just an Empire.</p><p>Long live Emperor Obama</p><p>The US sucks big time, and so does the UN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you kiddin ' right ?
since when the US theocracy is a democracy ?
in your democracy people is being jailed for nothing , besides the fact that your congresspeople is getting into the vocabulary bussiness : Now they want to redefine ( please read 'specify ' ) what torture is .
They insist that half-drowning and sleep-deprived confessions are not 'torture' .
I 'd love to see how would they react if such 'non-torture ' is applied to them , or even better , to their children or their elder parents.Please , pretty please , until the day the US ( not 'americans ' , this continent is not yours alone ppl ) closes guantanamo and the base they just opened in colombia ( shame on uribe for being a pawn for your country ) , and all the rest of the military presence in middle east is withdrawn please do n't talk of democracy .
The US is just an Empire.Long live Emperor ObamaThe US sucks big time , and so does the UN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you kiddin' right?
since when the US theocracy is a democracy?
in your democracy people is being jailed for nothing, besides the fact that your congresspeople is getting into the vocabulary bussiness: Now they want to redefine (please read 'specify') what torture is.
They insist that half-drowning and sleep-deprived confessions are not 'torture'.
I'd love to see how would they react if such 'non-torture' is applied to them, or even better, to their children or their elder parents.Please, pretty please, until the day the US (not 'americans', this continent is not yours alone ppl) closes guantanamo and the base they just opened in colombia (shame on uribe for being a pawn for your country), and all the rest of the military presence in middle east is withdrawn please don't talk of democracy.
The US is just an Empire.Long live Emperor ObamaThe US sucks big time, and so does the UN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116042</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1258390260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise). Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all."</p><p>What? You do realise the UN comprises of every country in the world except Taiwan, Kosovo and Vatican city right? They're the only ones left to exert control over.</p><p>You really believe the UN exists purely to exert control over those 3 remaining countries?</p><p>Or are you one of those ignorant people who thinks UN = UNSC without realising that it also handles and has successfully handled for many decades things like international telecommunications standards, international postal standards, international air transport standards, international maritime standards and so on?</p><p>How do you think we'd safely fly planes across the world without crashing more regularly if it weren't for the fact we had an organisation like the UN to standardise these things?</p><p>Why would you assume that the internet couldn't be handled just as well by the UN as these other important international systems that people use seamlessly day to day for say, sending letters without care of content, or making telephone calls without monitoring- unless your call is to or in the US of course due to US' own internal warrantless wiretapping?</p><p>But back to human rights, the current human rights council is fairly young, being formed only in March 2006 precisely because it's predecessory was accused of the issues you state. See here for a list of current nations:</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Human\_Rights\_Council#Members" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Human\_Rights\_Council#Members</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Note that the countries involved rotate such that all countries get a turn in there and that any one time there are many countries to ensure a balance international consensus. Put this into the context of your comments and again it seems to suggest you don't know what you're on about, if a balanced view is maintained and all 192 member states out of 195 total states in the world sits on the panel, what is your objection exactly? that the whole world is bad? if so then is that a problem with the UN or a reflection of shit rights in general even in the supposedly most liberal nations on Earth?</p><p>What about the world food program that regularly keeps millions of people alive- you know, that fundamental human right to life? The WHO and UNESCO have certainly not been perfect, but there's no denying they've done a lot to make the world a better place. The international court of justice has done some good, and also, although not part of the UN the ICC is closely aligned, and does a great job thanks to folk like Luis Moreno-Ocampo willing to prosecute for war crimes in Darfur in the face of pressure from some of the world's giants like China.</p><p>It seems most people who slag off the UN have little knowledge of what it does beyond those parts of it in the news all the time like the security council and world bank. It's a big organisation that does a lot of good work. It's not a bunch of countries imposing their will on everyone else on every issue bar the security council, but even that is accountable. It's an organisation to ensure international consensus on international issues. It is the perfect place for the internet to be managed. This is demonstrated by it's competence in looking the international maritime, aviation, postal, telecomms systems, versus, say, the US handling of ICANN, allowing it to seize the domains of foreign businesses on the court order of some non-factor redneck court in downtown jesus land, the proposal to commercialise TLDs and completely fuck up domain hierarchy and so on. Most hatred for the UN (and other international organisations) seems to stem mostly from xenophobia and ignorance rather than any actual understanding of what the bodies do and achieve. I'm not saying they're all perfect, far from it, but I am saying it's rediculous to suggest they're bad, when</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control , wherever possible ( just like any large organization , government or otherwise ) .
Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all. " What ?
You do realise the UN comprises of every country in the world except Taiwan , Kosovo and Vatican city right ?
They 're the only ones left to exert control over.You really believe the UN exists purely to exert control over those 3 remaining countries ? Or are you one of those ignorant people who thinks UN = UNSC without realising that it also handles and has successfully handled for many decades things like international telecommunications standards , international postal standards , international air transport standards , international maritime standards and so on ? How do you think we 'd safely fly planes across the world without crashing more regularly if it were n't for the fact we had an organisation like the UN to standardise these things ? Why would you assume that the internet could n't be handled just as well by the UN as these other important international systems that people use seamlessly day to day for say , sending letters without care of content , or making telephone calls without monitoring- unless your call is to or in the US of course due to US ' own internal warrantless wiretapping ? But back to human rights , the current human rights council is fairly young , being formed only in March 2006 precisely because it 's predecessory was accused of the issues you state .
See here for a list of current nations : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _Nations \ _Human \ _Rights \ _Council # Members [ wikipedia.org ] Note that the countries involved rotate such that all countries get a turn in there and that any one time there are many countries to ensure a balance international consensus .
Put this into the context of your comments and again it seems to suggest you do n't know what you 're on about , if a balanced view is maintained and all 192 member states out of 195 total states in the world sits on the panel , what is your objection exactly ?
that the whole world is bad ?
if so then is that a problem with the UN or a reflection of shit rights in general even in the supposedly most liberal nations on Earth ? What about the world food program that regularly keeps millions of people alive- you know , that fundamental human right to life ?
The WHO and UNESCO have certainly not been perfect , but there 's no denying they 've done a lot to make the world a better place .
The international court of justice has done some good , and also , although not part of the UN the ICC is closely aligned , and does a great job thanks to folk like Luis Moreno-Ocampo willing to prosecute for war crimes in Darfur in the face of pressure from some of the world 's giants like China.It seems most people who slag off the UN have little knowledge of what it does beyond those parts of it in the news all the time like the security council and world bank .
It 's a big organisation that does a lot of good work .
It 's not a bunch of countries imposing their will on everyone else on every issue bar the security council , but even that is accountable .
It 's an organisation to ensure international consensus on international issues .
It is the perfect place for the internet to be managed .
This is demonstrated by it 's competence in looking the international maritime , aviation , postal , telecomms systems , versus , say , the US handling of ICANN , allowing it to seize the domains of foreign businesses on the court order of some non-factor redneck court in downtown jesus land , the proposal to commercialise TLDs and completely fuck up domain hierarchy and so on .
Most hatred for the UN ( and other international organisations ) seems to stem mostly from xenophobia and ignorance rather than any actual understanding of what the bodies do and achieve .
I 'm not saying they 're all perfect , far from it , but I am saying it 's rediculous to suggest they 're bad , when</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise).
Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all."What?
You do realise the UN comprises of every country in the world except Taiwan, Kosovo and Vatican city right?
They're the only ones left to exert control over.You really believe the UN exists purely to exert control over those 3 remaining countries?Or are you one of those ignorant people who thinks UN = UNSC without realising that it also handles and has successfully handled for many decades things like international telecommunications standards, international postal standards, international air transport standards, international maritime standards and so on?How do you think we'd safely fly planes across the world without crashing more regularly if it weren't for the fact we had an organisation like the UN to standardise these things?Why would you assume that the internet couldn't be handled just as well by the UN as these other important international systems that people use seamlessly day to day for say, sending letters without care of content, or making telephone calls without monitoring- unless your call is to or in the US of course due to US' own internal warrantless wiretapping?But back to human rights, the current human rights council is fairly young, being formed only in March 2006 precisely because it's predecessory was accused of the issues you state.
See here for a list of current nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Human\_Rights\_Council#Members [wikipedia.org] Note that the countries involved rotate such that all countries get a turn in there and that any one time there are many countries to ensure a balance international consensus.
Put this into the context of your comments and again it seems to suggest you don't know what you're on about, if a balanced view is maintained and all 192 member states out of 195 total states in the world sits on the panel, what is your objection exactly?
that the whole world is bad?
if so then is that a problem with the UN or a reflection of shit rights in general even in the supposedly most liberal nations on Earth?What about the world food program that regularly keeps millions of people alive- you know, that fundamental human right to life?
The WHO and UNESCO have certainly not been perfect, but there's no denying they've done a lot to make the world a better place.
The international court of justice has done some good, and also, although not part of the UN the ICC is closely aligned, and does a great job thanks to folk like Luis Moreno-Ocampo willing to prosecute for war crimes in Darfur in the face of pressure from some of the world's giants like China.It seems most people who slag off the UN have little knowledge of what it does beyond those parts of it in the news all the time like the security council and world bank.
It's a big organisation that does a lot of good work.
It's not a bunch of countries imposing their will on everyone else on every issue bar the security council, but even that is accountable.
It's an organisation to ensure international consensus on international issues.
It is the perfect place for the internet to be managed.
This is demonstrated by it's competence in looking the international maritime, aviation, postal, telecomms systems, versus, say, the US handling of ICANN, allowing it to seize the domains of foreign businesses on the court order of some non-factor redneck court in downtown jesus land, the proposal to commercialise TLDs and completely fuck up domain hierarchy and so on.
Most hatred for the UN (and other international organisations) seems to stem mostly from xenophobia and ignorance rather than any actual understanding of what the bodies do and achieve.
I'm not saying they're all perfect, far from it, but I am saying it's rediculous to suggest they're bad, when</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anpheus</author>
	<datestamp>1258290540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how?</p><p>I mean, at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious. Our previous ambassador wanted nothing more than to tear the whole thing down. Half the nation thinks diplomacy is for little girls and real men point missiles at each other until a vein pops or someone blinks.</p><p>If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process. If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.</p><p>Your discourse helps no one and all it does is promote a helpless fatalism in international politics.</p><p>P.S.: Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories. "Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity" should be "never attribute to a massive conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by one middle-manager overreacting." I'm guessing one middle-management-esque official in the UN saw the poster, took unnecessary authority of the situation and demanded that it be taken down. When he didn't get his way he called guards whose job is to listen to higher ups, who did as their job asks without questioning their "boss". And the result was a petty diplomatic incident wherein someone overreached and may even get punished for acting hastily and calling yet more attention to Chinese censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how ? I mean , at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious .
Our previous ambassador wanted nothing more than to tear the whole thing down .
Half the nation thinks diplomacy is for little girls and real men point missiles at each other until a vein pops or someone blinks.If we want to improve it , we need to contribute to the process .
If we refuse to contribute , and then someone in the UN does something stupid , or goes against US foreign policy , we have no room to complain.Your discourse helps no one and all it does is promote a helpless fatalism in international politics.P.S .
: Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories .
" Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity " should be " never attribute to a massive conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by one middle-manager overreacting .
" I 'm guessing one middle-management-esque official in the UN saw the poster , took unnecessary authority of the situation and demanded that it be taken down .
When he did n't get his way he called guards whose job is to listen to higher ups , who did as their job asks without questioning their " boss " .
And the result was a petty diplomatic incident wherein someone overreached and may even get punished for acting hastily and calling yet more attention to Chinese censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how?I mean, at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious.
Our previous ambassador wanted nothing more than to tear the whole thing down.
Half the nation thinks diplomacy is for little girls and real men point missiles at each other until a vein pops or someone blinks.If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process.
If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.Your discourse helps no one and all it does is promote a helpless fatalism in international politics.P.S.
: Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories.
"Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity" should be "never attribute to a massive conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by one middle-manager overreacting.
" I'm guessing one middle-management-esque official in the UN saw the poster, took unnecessary authority of the situation and demanded that it be taken down.
When he didn't get his way he called guards whose job is to listen to higher ups, who did as their job asks without questioning their "boss".
And the result was a petty diplomatic incident wherein someone overreached and may even get punished for acting hastily and calling yet more attention to Chinese censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30120698</id>
	<title>applause?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258362840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did anyone else notice the clapping when the poster was taken away?<br>why would anyone have been applauding that?  was it the chinese?  the mpaa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did anyone else notice the clapping when the poster was taken away ? why would anyone have been applauding that ?
was it the chinese ?
the mpaa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did anyone else notice the clapping when the poster was taken away?why would anyone have been applauding that?
was it the chinese?
the mpaa?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110666</id>
	<title>Re:It has become apparent</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258293000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strange. Since the UN usually is the arm of the US government.<br>Whether this is because China now owns the USA (in terms of money they owe)...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange .
Since the UN usually is the arm of the US government.Whether this is because China now owns the USA ( in terms of money they owe ) ... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange.
Since the UN usually is the arm of the US government.Whether this is because China now owns the USA (in terms of money they owe)...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054</id>
	<title>It's good to be owed money!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258288200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event just because someone is trying to impress or <b>be in the good graces of the Chinese government.</b></p> </div><p>That's what happens when you owe a lot of money to someone or want some of their money.</p><p>Up next: China takes back  Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.</p><p>Now just remember that when you go to put all those Christmas gifts (Made in China) on your credit card (in a very circuitous route:Financed by China).</p><p>Yep! Now who's the Super Power, again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event just because someone is trying to impress or be in the good graces of the Chinese government .
That 's what happens when you owe a lot of money to someone or want some of their money.Up next : China takes back Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.Now just remember that when you go to put all those Christmas gifts ( Made in China ) on your credit card ( in a very circuitous route : Financed by China ) .Yep !
Now who 's the Super Power , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event just because someone is trying to impress or be in the good graces of the Chinese government.
That's what happens when you owe a lot of money to someone or want some of their money.Up next: China takes back  Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.Now just remember that when you go to put all those Christmas gifts (Made in China) on your credit card (in a very circuitous route:Financed by China).Yep!
Now who's the Super Power, again?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109922</id>
	<title>Because the UN...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258287120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is sooooo interested in your personal freedoms.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) Beware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is sooooo interested in your personal freedoms .
; - ) Beware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is sooooo interested in your personal freedoms.
;-) Beware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114304</id>
	<title>Re:Another theory</title>
	<author>qirtaiba</author>
	<datestamp>1258380480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.  I'm here at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, and this book launch was a scheduled event in a separate room dedicated for the launch at this time.  Your theory might have been correct if the poster had been erected in the main session room where other discussions were going on, but this was not so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I 'm here at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh , and this book launch was a scheduled event in a separate room dedicated for the launch at this time .
Your theory might have been correct if the poster had been erected in the main session room where other discussions were going on , but this was not so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I'm here at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, and this book launch was a scheduled event in a separate room dedicated for the launch at this time.
Your theory might have been correct if the poster had been erected in the main session room where other discussions were going on, but this was not so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110494</id>
	<title>Re:Oh the UN is such a joke</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1258291380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What good is a group of yes men?<br> <br>
Oh I didn't realize you had the EU in there. There would still be incessant arguing, then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What good is a group of yes men ?
Oh I did n't realize you had the EU in there .
There would still be incessant arguing , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What good is a group of yes men?
Oh I didn't realize you had the EU in there.
There would still be incessant arguing, then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110694</id>
	<title>Re:was witnessed by many</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258293360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then again: Prove that anyone or anything except for yourself <em>exists at all</em>. ^^</p><p>There are no facts. There is only relative information, obtained trough channels with trust relationships. (How much do you trust your source? And how much do you trust your own eyes? What you think you know is relative to your source and the trust in it.)<br>If it is a "fact" (which it can't) is actually irrelevant.</p><p>The question is, what it makes out of you, and what you make of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again : Prove that anyone or anything except for yourself exists at all .
^ ^ There are no facts .
There is only relative information , obtained trough channels with trust relationships .
( How much do you trust your source ?
And how much do you trust your own eyes ?
What you think you know is relative to your source and the trust in it .
) If it is a " fact " ( which it ca n't ) is actually irrelevant.The question is , what it makes out of you , and what you make of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again: Prove that anyone or anything except for yourself exists at all.
^^There are no facts.
There is only relative information, obtained trough channels with trust relationships.
(How much do you trust your source?
And how much do you trust your own eyes?
What you think you know is relative to your source and the trust in it.
)If it is a "fact" (which it can't) is actually irrelevant.The question is, what it makes out of you, and what you make of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110886</id>
	<title>U.N. and One World Government....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258295220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise). Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all."</p><p>The UN is about establishing <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=114005" title="wnd.com" rel="nofollow">One World Government</a> [wnd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control , wherever possible ( just like any large organization , government or otherwise ) .
Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all .
" The UN is about establishing One World Government [ wnd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise).
Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.
"The UN is about establishing One World Government [wnd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110170</id>
	<title>Which UN policy did the poster contravene?</title>
	<author>ExRex</author>
	<datestamp>1258289160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not made clear in the article.<br>
Also, it was very odd the way everyone stood around the poster on the floor, not touching it or picking it up, as though it were a diseased, dead body which no one was willing to touch. So they called the police to come an take it away.<br>
Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not made clear in the article .
Also , it was very odd the way everyone stood around the poster on the floor , not touching it or picking it up , as though it were a diseased , dead body which no one was willing to touch .
So they called the police to come an take it away .
Why did n't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again , I wonder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not made clear in the article.
Also, it was very odd the way everyone stood around the poster on the floor, not touching it or picking it up, as though it were a diseased, dead body which no one was willing to touch.
So they called the police to come an take it away.
Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111742</id>
	<title>Re:But you have to admire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's like the ridiculous "right" to own property, even though I don't know who will pay to keep other people from using the property, or the "right" to be protected from crime, as if police and courts just magically appear, without someone having to pay for them.</p><p>The most obscene "rights" of all are the crazy ideas that there's some magical protection of "free speech", that the government should be chosen in elections and that a huge military machine should be built up to prevent foreign invasions. All these things cost money, which means all the people who favour this socialist nonsense are thieves! Nobody should be forced to pay to defend someone else's so-called "freedom of speech", "right to vote" or "national defence". None of these are rights, just excuses for socialists to steal money from the hard-working, gun-owning population.</p><p>Obviously whoever has the most guns should decide what people are allowed to say, appoint the government and invade other countries before they have the chance to invade us. It's just common sense. And if these crazy socialists think they have some "right" to own property, let them pay for the guns to keep other people off of it. Let them pay for the guns to defend their so-called "right" not to be robbed, raped or killed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's like the ridiculous " right " to own property , even though I do n't know who will pay to keep other people from using the property , or the " right " to be protected from crime , as if police and courts just magically appear , without someone having to pay for them.The most obscene " rights " of all are the crazy ideas that there 's some magical protection of " free speech " , that the government should be chosen in elections and that a huge military machine should be built up to prevent foreign invasions .
All these things cost money , which means all the people who favour this socialist nonsense are thieves !
Nobody should be forced to pay to defend someone else 's so-called " freedom of speech " , " right to vote " or " national defence " .
None of these are rights , just excuses for socialists to steal money from the hard-working , gun-owning population.Obviously whoever has the most guns should decide what people are allowed to say , appoint the government and invade other countries before they have the chance to invade us .
It 's just common sense .
And if these crazy socialists think they have some " right " to own property , let them pay for the guns to keep other people off of it .
Let them pay for the guns to defend their so-called " right " not to be robbed , raped or killed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's like the ridiculous "right" to own property, even though I don't know who will pay to keep other people from using the property, or the "right" to be protected from crime, as if police and courts just magically appear, without someone having to pay for them.The most obscene "rights" of all are the crazy ideas that there's some magical protection of "free speech", that the government should be chosen in elections and that a huge military machine should be built up to prevent foreign invasions.
All these things cost money, which means all the people who favour this socialist nonsense are thieves!
Nobody should be forced to pay to defend someone else's so-called "freedom of speech", "right to vote" or "national defence".
None of these are rights, just excuses for socialists to steal money from the hard-working, gun-owning population.Obviously whoever has the most guns should decide what people are allowed to say, appoint the government and invade other countries before they have the chance to invade us.
It's just common sense.
And if these crazy socialists think they have some "right" to own property, let them pay for the guns to keep other people off of it.
Let them pay for the guns to defend their so-called "right" not to be robbed, raped or killed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112344</id>
	<title>Re:was witnessed by many</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have known about this for over a decade.</p><p>News articles that are "too good to be true" in a "future time" tend to disappear...of course, I print them out and still have them...but if you try the link...<i>gone</i>.</p><p>Just as the internet has promoted the free flow of information, so can it too become a dictator's wet dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have known about this for over a decade.News articles that are " too good to be true " in a " future time " tend to disappear...of course , I print them out and still have them...but if you try the link...gone.Just as the internet has promoted the free flow of information , so can it too become a dictator 's wet dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have known about this for over a decade.News articles that are "too good to be true" in a "future time" tend to disappear...of course, I print them out and still have them...but if you try the link...gone.Just as the internet has promoted the free flow of information, so can it too become a dictator's wet dream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110288</id>
	<title>Another theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258289940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it at all possible that rather than it being "anti-censorship", it was simply that they didn't want someone trying to hawk merchandise?  Is it possible that the witness jumped to a conclusion and filled in the details for what he thought was a reason?</p><p>I noticed in the video that the room didn't have any other posters advertising anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it at all possible that rather than it being " anti-censorship " , it was simply that they did n't want someone trying to hawk merchandise ?
Is it possible that the witness jumped to a conclusion and filled in the details for what he thought was a reason ? I noticed in the video that the room did n't have any other posters advertising anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it at all possible that rather than it being "anti-censorship", it was simply that they didn't want someone trying to hawk merchandise?
Is it possible that the witness jumped to a conclusion and filled in the details for what he thought was a reason?I noticed in the video that the room didn't have any other posters advertising anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30117006</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1258394340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves?</p></div></blockquote><p>Without knowing the specifics, no. However, I can tell you that, in international relations, your goals are achieved, far more often than not, through not approaching the problem with all guns blazing.</p><p>It's not like society, where the enforcers and enforcees are clearly defined and the enforcers have considerably more immediate power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves ? Without knowing the specifics , no .
However , I can tell you that , in international relations , your goals are achieved , far more often than not , through not approaching the problem with all guns blazing.It 's not like society , where the enforcers and enforcees are clearly defined and the enforcers have considerably more immediate power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves?Without knowing the specifics, no.
However, I can tell you that, in international relations, your goals are achieved, far more often than not, through not approaching the problem with all guns blazing.It's not like society, where the enforcers and enforcees are clearly defined and the enforcers have considerably more immediate power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111496</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258301040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intentions behind the UN were good, but it was a funamental error to make the organisation open to any country that accepts its basic principles, which essentially amount to not invading each other. Since adherence to the UDHR isn't mandatory for membership, the UN is full of dictatorships that repress human rights, but are able through sheer numbers to gain influence over the direction of UN policies.</p><p>The Security Council helps to constrain the influence of the large number of tin-pot dictatorships and fanatical religious regimes (primarily Islamic) in the General Assembly by granting a veto to the permanent members, including a few large democracies. However, the fact that a repressive dictatorship like the People's Republic of China is also a permanent member makes the whole thing a mockery.</p><p>The idea that the UN exists to increase its own power seems rather silly to me. The UN has very little power, and the tinpot dictators, religious fanatics and Chinese Communist Party want to keep it that way. They want an organisation that is impotent to promote the ideals of human rights on which the UN was founded, and instead spends its time on trivialities.</p><p>If countries that sytematically violate the UDHR, including most Muslim countries and Marxist/fascist dictatorships like China, were expelled from the UN, it might actually be able to return to the ideals on which it was founded. Without a major change like that, it will remain an irrelevance. Countries that actually care about democracy and human rights would be better off starting over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intentions behind the UN were good , but it was a funamental error to make the organisation open to any country that accepts its basic principles , which essentially amount to not invading each other .
Since adherence to the UDHR is n't mandatory for membership , the UN is full of dictatorships that repress human rights , but are able through sheer numbers to gain influence over the direction of UN policies.The Security Council helps to constrain the influence of the large number of tin-pot dictatorships and fanatical religious regimes ( primarily Islamic ) in the General Assembly by granting a veto to the permanent members , including a few large democracies .
However , the fact that a repressive dictatorship like the People 's Republic of China is also a permanent member makes the whole thing a mockery.The idea that the UN exists to increase its own power seems rather silly to me .
The UN has very little power , and the tinpot dictators , religious fanatics and Chinese Communist Party want to keep it that way .
They want an organisation that is impotent to promote the ideals of human rights on which the UN was founded , and instead spends its time on trivialities.If countries that sytematically violate the UDHR , including most Muslim countries and Marxist/fascist dictatorships like China , were expelled from the UN , it might actually be able to return to the ideals on which it was founded .
Without a major change like that , it will remain an irrelevance .
Countries that actually care about democracy and human rights would be better off starting over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intentions behind the UN were good, but it was a funamental error to make the organisation open to any country that accepts its basic principles, which essentially amount to not invading each other.
Since adherence to the UDHR isn't mandatory for membership, the UN is full of dictatorships that repress human rights, but are able through sheer numbers to gain influence over the direction of UN policies.The Security Council helps to constrain the influence of the large number of tin-pot dictatorships and fanatical religious regimes (primarily Islamic) in the General Assembly by granting a veto to the permanent members, including a few large democracies.
However, the fact that a repressive dictatorship like the People's Republic of China is also a permanent member makes the whole thing a mockery.The idea that the UN exists to increase its own power seems rather silly to me.
The UN has very little power, and the tinpot dictators, religious fanatics and Chinese Communist Party want to keep it that way.
They want an organisation that is impotent to promote the ideals of human rights on which the UN was founded, and instead spends its time on trivialities.If countries that sytematically violate the UDHR, including most Muslim countries and Marxist/fascist dictatorships like China, were expelled from the UN, it might actually be able to return to the ideals on which it was founded.
Without a major change like that, it will remain an irrelevance.
Countries that actually care about democracy and human rights would be better off starting over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30154202</id>
	<title>You dont mix freedom of internet with bad politics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258627200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You dont mix freedom of internet with bad politics.<br>What Tibet have to do with it?<br>They got what they deserved.</p><p>Tibet have nothing to do with censorship. It is completely separate thing.</p><p>If they were there to promote freedom of speech an taking down internet censorship, then fine.</p><p>But mixing that with some bad politics does not comes together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You dont mix freedom of internet with bad politics.What Tibet have to do with it ? They got what they deserved.Tibet have nothing to do with censorship .
It is completely separate thing.If they were there to promote freedom of speech an taking down internet censorship , then fine.But mixing that with some bad politics does not comes together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You dont mix freedom of internet with bad politics.What Tibet have to do with it?They got what they deserved.Tibet have nothing to do with censorship.
It is completely separate thing.If they were there to promote freedom of speech an taking down internet censorship, then fine.But mixing that with some bad politics does not comes together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110606</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258292340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should like a typical Libetarian nut. The UN is a diplomatic forum. The only nutter are the people who thing it is more than that</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should like a typical Libetarian nut .
The UN is a diplomatic forum .
The only nutter are the people who thing it is more than that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should like a typical Libetarian nut.
The UN is a diplomatic forum.
The only nutter are the people who thing it is more than that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110764</id>
	<title>Governance in Egypt is like....</title>
	<author>ScaredOfTheMan</author>
	<datestamp>1258294080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A Internet Governance Conference in Egypt is like....  Vegan conference at a McDonald.

You really expected the UN or Egypt to do something China might not like?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Internet Governance Conference in Egypt is like.... Vegan conference at a McDonald .
You really expected the UN or Egypt to do something China might not like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Internet Governance Conference in Egypt is like....  Vegan conference at a McDonald.
You really expected the UN or Egypt to do something China might not like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111154</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to be owed money!</title>
	<author>LatencyKills</author>
	<datestamp>1258298340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China at this point holds so much US debt that it really can't be used as a threat anymore.  If they threaten to dump the debt on the market driving down the US credit rating, the result would be an enormous hammering of the Chinese economy.  Also, the US could also simply decide not to repay the debt - this would have catastrophic consequences for both the US and China, but it's clear that in any maneuver involving the US debt China and the US have a kind of MAD thing going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China at this point holds so much US debt that it really ca n't be used as a threat anymore .
If they threaten to dump the debt on the market driving down the US credit rating , the result would be an enormous hammering of the Chinese economy .
Also , the US could also simply decide not to repay the debt - this would have catastrophic consequences for both the US and China , but it 's clear that in any maneuver involving the US debt China and the US have a kind of MAD thing going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China at this point holds so much US debt that it really can't be used as a threat anymore.
If they threaten to dump the debt on the market driving down the US credit rating, the result would be an enormous hammering of the Chinese economy.
Also, the US could also simply decide not to repay the debt - this would have catastrophic consequences for both the US and China, but it's clear that in any maneuver involving the US debt China and the US have a kind of MAD thing going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110642</id>
	<title>The purpose of the UN</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1258292760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.</p><p>The UN actually does a good job doing what they were designed to do.  It is just that most people were misled as to what they were designed to do.  Look at how the UN was organized, one nation state, one vote in a world where most were unfree hellholes.  The UN is thus essentially a Parliment of Tyrants, by design.  So look at it's output and you will see it is actualy doing a good job of advancing the march of tyrany and human rights abuse.</p><p>Turning the Internet over to the UN must, as night follows day, lead to the advancement of the goals of tyrants.  Anyone shocked by this simply wasn't paying attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.The UN actually does a good job doing what they were designed to do .
It is just that most people were misled as to what they were designed to do .
Look at how the UN was organized , one nation state , one vote in a world where most were unfree hellholes .
The UN is thus essentially a Parliment of Tyrants , by design .
So look at it 's output and you will see it is actualy doing a good job of advancing the march of tyrany and human rights abuse.Turning the Internet over to the UN must , as night follows day , lead to the advancement of the goals of tyrants .
Anyone shocked by this simply was n't paying attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.The UN actually does a good job doing what they were designed to do.
It is just that most people were misled as to what they were designed to do.
Look at how the UN was organized, one nation state, one vote in a world where most were unfree hellholes.
The UN is thus essentially a Parliment of Tyrants, by design.
So look at it's output and you will see it is actualy doing a good job of advancing the march of tyrany and human rights abuse.Turning the Internet over to the UN must, as night follows day, lead to the advancement of the goals of tyrants.
Anyone shocked by this simply wasn't paying attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110076</id>
	<title>It has become apparent</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1258288380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That the UN itself has become an arm of the chinese government, in censoring anti-censorship advocates.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That the UN itself has become an arm of the chinese government , in censoring anti-censorship advocates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That the UN itself has become an arm of the chinese government, in censoring anti-censorship advocates.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</id>
	<title>U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1258286820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane.  All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...</p><p>The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise).  Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane .
All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control , wherever possible ( just like any large organization , government or otherwise ) .
Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane.
All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise).
Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30115768</id>
	<title>If it was me...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1258388880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legally they have done nothing wrong, and are not breaking the law, so when the goons came in and took down the posters, it was merely a show of force, and nothing that could not have been prevented....however...being sly enough, I would have thought a better rebuttal, would have been to plaster all the walls with the same poster, requiring a full day for the "goons" to take down, as well use the really hard glue to keep in place...or even fibreglass casings, with padlocks. In the end...if they want to keep that poster up, they can<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...if they are willing to go the extra mile.</p><p>To prove the point, I would...but that is just me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legally they have done nothing wrong , and are not breaking the law , so when the goons came in and took down the posters , it was merely a show of force , and nothing that could not have been prevented....however...being sly enough , I would have thought a better rebuttal , would have been to plaster all the walls with the same poster , requiring a full day for the " goons " to take down , as well use the really hard glue to keep in place...or even fibreglass casings , with padlocks .
In the end...if they want to keep that poster up , they can ...if they are willing to go the extra mile.To prove the point , I would...but that is just me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legally they have done nothing wrong, and are not breaking the law, so when the goons came in and took down the posters, it was merely a show of force, and nothing that could not have been prevented....however...being sly enough, I would have thought a better rebuttal, would have been to plaster all the walls with the same poster, requiring a full day for the "goons" to take down, as well use the really hard glue to keep in place...or even fibreglass casings, with padlocks.
In the end...if they want to keep that poster up, they can ...if they are willing to go the extra mile.To prove the point, I would...but that is just me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30121216</id>
	<title>Re:Wake up - China is NOT your friend</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1258365000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>APEC Summit in<br>Singapore: Four Powers Agenda Brought to the Table By Russia and China</p><p>November 15,<br>2009 (LPAC)&mdash;The heads of 21 Asia-Pacific nations, including China, Russia<br>and the United States, are in Singapore this weekend for the annual APEC<br>forum.  And while speeches by Russian President Medvedev and Chinese<br>President Hu Jintao have affirmed the new cooperation between those two<br>anchor nations of the Four Powers alliance, much of the concrete statecraft<br>has been taking place on the sidelines, in a series of bilateral meetings.<br>President Obama arrived late Saturday night from his first Asia stopover in<br>Tokyo, and will go on to China and South Korea after the APEC gathering ends.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; He will meet separately with Presidents Medvedev and Hu Jintao during the<br>weekend.</p><p>While the formal heads of state summit is to take place Sunday, both the<br>Russian and Chinese presidents addressed a gathering of business leaders on<br>Saturday, and both speeches reflected the strategic shift in orientation of<br>the two governments.  President Medvedev, according to Itar-Tass, emphasized<br>that the global financial crisis has forced a structural overhaul of the<br>national economy.  "He believes that Russia should become a country whose<br>prosperity will depend not so much on raw materials as on intellectual<br>resources, high technologies, innovative products, etc."  President Medvedev<br>expanded on those points, in an article he published in The<br>Economist, on the eve of the APEC summit, focusing on Russian expanded<br>investment in research and development in the field of nuclear power, outer<br>space, and medicine.</p><p>Presidents Medvedev and Hu Jintao met in Singapore, and in comments to<br>reporters, both leaders stressed the recent agreements to build up the<br>regions of the Russian Far East and China.  "I have already given<br>instructions on the fulfillment of the agreements," Medvedev told his Chinese<br>counterpart."  Hu Jintao noted that the Russian president is coming to China<br>next year, and emphasized that this will be an "important event in the<br>development of bilateral relations."</p><p>Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met on Saturday with U.S. Secretary<br>of States Hillary Clinton, and invited her to visit China next year&mdash;which<br>she accepted.  She will be accompanying President Obama next week on a four<br>day visit to China, with stopovers in Shanghai and Beijing.</p><p>And in another indication of dramatic changes in the political relations<br>in the Far East, Chinese President Hu Jintao also met, in his capacity as<br>General Secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, with<br>Lien Chan, honorary chairman of the Koumintang (KMT), who was formerly vice<br>president of Taiwan.  At the meeting, Hu declared, "We should continue to<br>follow the approaches of putting aside difficult issues, and making economic<br>issues priority in advancing cross-Strait consultation, and strive to launch<br>the consultation process for a cross-Strait economic cooperation framework<br>agreement within this year."</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>APEC Summit inSingapore : Four Powers Agenda Brought to the Table By Russia and ChinaNovember 15,2009 ( LPAC )    The heads of 21 Asia-Pacific nations , including China , Russiaand the United States , are in Singapore this weekend for the annual APECforum .
And while speeches by Russian President Medvedev and ChinesePresident Hu Jintao have affirmed the new cooperation between those twoanchor nations of the Four Powers alliance , much of the concrete statecrafthas been taking place on the sidelines , in a series of bilateral meetings.President Obama arrived late Saturday night from his first Asia stopover inTokyo , and will go on to China and South Korea after the APEC gathering ends .
    He will meet separately with Presidents Medvedev and Hu Jintao during theweekend.While the formal heads of state summit is to take place Sunday , both theRussian and Chinese presidents addressed a gathering of business leaders onSaturday , and both speeches reflected the strategic shift in orientation ofthe two governments .
President Medvedev , according to Itar-Tass , emphasizedthat the global financial crisis has forced a structural overhaul of thenational economy .
" He believes that Russia should become a country whoseprosperity will depend not so much on raw materials as on intellectualresources , high technologies , innovative products , etc .
" President Medvedevexpanded on those points , in an article he published in TheEconomist , on the eve of the APEC summit , focusing on Russian expandedinvestment in research and development in the field of nuclear power , outerspace , and medicine.Presidents Medvedev and Hu Jintao met in Singapore , and in comments toreporters , both leaders stressed the recent agreements to build up theregions of the Russian Far East and China .
" I have already giveninstructions on the fulfillment of the agreements , " Medvedev told his Chinesecounterpart .
" Hu Jintao noted that the Russian president is coming to Chinanext year , and emphasized that this will be an " important event in thedevelopment of bilateral relations .
" Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met on Saturday with U.S. Secretaryof States Hillary Clinton , and invited her to visit China next year    whichshe accepted .
She will be accompanying President Obama next week on a fourday visit to China , with stopovers in Shanghai and Beijing.And in another indication of dramatic changes in the political relationsin the Far East , Chinese President Hu Jintao also met , in his capacity asGeneral Secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee , withLien Chan , honorary chairman of the Koumintang ( KMT ) , who was formerly vicepresident of Taiwan .
At the meeting , Hu declared , " We should continue tofollow the approaches of putting aside difficult issues , and making economicissues priority in advancing cross-Strait consultation , and strive to launchthe consultation process for a cross-Strait economic cooperation frameworkagreement within this year .
"                                                                                                        </tokentext>
<sentencetext>APEC Summit inSingapore: Four Powers Agenda Brought to the Table By Russia and ChinaNovember 15,2009 (LPAC)—The heads of 21 Asia-Pacific nations, including China, Russiaand the United States, are in Singapore this weekend for the annual APECforum.
And while speeches by Russian President Medvedev and ChinesePresident Hu Jintao have affirmed the new cooperation between those twoanchor nations of the Four Powers alliance, much of the concrete statecrafthas been taking place on the sidelines, in a series of bilateral meetings.President Obama arrived late Saturday night from his first Asia stopover inTokyo, and will go on to China and South Korea after the APEC gathering ends.
    He will meet separately with Presidents Medvedev and Hu Jintao during theweekend.While the formal heads of state summit is to take place Sunday, both theRussian and Chinese presidents addressed a gathering of business leaders onSaturday, and both speeches reflected the strategic shift in orientation ofthe two governments.
President Medvedev, according to Itar-Tass, emphasizedthat the global financial crisis has forced a structural overhaul of thenational economy.
"He believes that Russia should become a country whoseprosperity will depend not so much on raw materials as on intellectualresources, high technologies, innovative products, etc.
"  President Medvedevexpanded on those points, in an article he published in TheEconomist, on the eve of the APEC summit, focusing on Russian expandedinvestment in research and development in the field of nuclear power, outerspace, and medicine.Presidents Medvedev and Hu Jintao met in Singapore, and in comments toreporters, both leaders stressed the recent agreements to build up theregions of the Russian Far East and China.
"I have already giveninstructions on the fulfillment of the agreements," Medvedev told his Chinesecounterpart.
"  Hu Jintao noted that the Russian president is coming to Chinanext year, and emphasized that this will be an "important event in thedevelopment of bilateral relations.
"Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met on Saturday with U.S. Secretaryof States Hillary Clinton, and invited her to visit China next year—whichshe accepted.
She will be accompanying President Obama next week on a fourday visit to China, with stopovers in Shanghai and Beijing.And in another indication of dramatic changes in the political relationsin the Far East, Chinese President Hu Jintao also met, in his capacity asGeneral Secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, withLien Chan, honorary chairman of the Koumintang (KMT), who was formerly vicepresident of Taiwan.
At the meeting, Hu declared, "We should continue tofollow the approaches of putting aside difficult issues, and making economicissues priority in advancing cross-Strait consultation, and strive to launchthe consultation process for a cross-Strait economic cooperation frameworkagreement within this year.
"
                                                                                                       </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113346</id>
	<title>This ain't a mall .. it's a conference !</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1258368120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People just don't show up at conferences with a stand ; they make appointments beforehand most of the time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>And mall cops don't work under the UN jurisdiction for as far as I know.</p><p>To my opinion, this is pure censoring, make about it what you want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People just do n't show up at conferences with a stand ; they make appointments beforehand most of the time ....And mall cops do n't work under the UN jurisdiction for as far as I know.To my opinion , this is pure censoring , make about it what you want .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People just don't show up at conferences with a stand ; they make appointments beforehand most of the time ....And mall cops don't work under the UN jurisdiction for as far as I know.To my opinion, this is pure censoring, make about it what you want ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113014</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258363500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious.</p></div><p>But for the US the UN wouldn't exist.  Not simply because the US advocated its creation, but since then has guarded (and suffered) the venue, funded its operation and fought its wars.  The UN complains loudly about receiving fewer billions from the US than it demands, despite the fact that this US has and continues to fund the UN <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_nations#Funding" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">substantially more</a> [wikipedia.org] than any other member state.  When you count the US and its two strongest allies in the world, the UK and Japan, you have almost half of all UN funding.  The US owes no apology to the UN.  The self-loathing you have been deliberately imbued with from infancy has you believing any and all claims of neglect; you take these claims as articles of faith and regurgitate them on queue, just as you've been trained.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious.But for the US the UN would n't exist .
Not simply because the US advocated its creation , but since then has guarded ( and suffered ) the venue , funded its operation and fought its wars .
The UN complains loudly about receiving fewer billions from the US than it demands , despite the fact that this US has and continues to fund the UN substantially more [ wikipedia.org ] than any other member state .
When you count the US and its two strongest allies in the world , the UK and Japan , you have almost half of all UN funding .
The US owes no apology to the UN .
The self-loathing you have been deliberately imbued with from infancy has you believing any and all claims of neglect ; you take these claims as articles of faith and regurgitate them on queue , just as you 've been trained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious.But for the US the UN wouldn't exist.
Not simply because the US advocated its creation, but since then has guarded (and suffered) the venue, funded its operation and fought its wars.
The UN complains loudly about receiving fewer billions from the US than it demands, despite the fact that this US has and continues to fund the UN substantially more [wikipedia.org] than any other member state.
When you count the US and its two strongest allies in the world, the UK and Japan, you have almost half of all UN funding.
The US owes no apology to the UN.
The self-loathing you have been deliberately imbued with from infancy has you believing any and all claims of neglect; you take these claims as articles of faith and regurgitate them on queue, just as you've been trained.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111364</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>sasha328</author>
	<datestamp>1258300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the UN Charter (the treaty that established it in the 1940s) as a successor to the League of Nations:</p><p>This is from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN\_Charter" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter states</p><p>The Purposes of the United Nations are[1]</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.</p><p>Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states</p><p>The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:[1]</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.</p></div></blockquote><p>Two phrases: 1- "Peace and Security" and 2- "the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." define and determine why it is so slow to act and is usually ineffective when it comes to "sovereignty" issues. It's technical arms (which usually don't threaten any sovereignty) tend to be quite good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the UN Charter ( the treaty that established it in the 1940s ) as a successor to the League of Nations : This is from Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] Chapter 1 , Article 1 of the UN Charter statesThe Purposes of the United Nations are [ 1 ]       1 .
To maintain international peace and security , to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace , and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace , and to bring about by peaceful means , and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law , adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace ;       2 .
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples , and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace ;       3 .
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic , social , cultural , or humanitarian character , and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race , sex , language , or religion ; and       4 .
To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.Chapter 1 , Article 2 of the UN Charter statesThe Organization and its Members , in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1 , shall act in accordance with the following Principles : [ 1 ]       1 .
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members .
      2 .
All Members , in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership , shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter .
      3 .
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security , and justice , are not endangered .
      4 .
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state , or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations .
      5 .
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter , and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action .
      6 .
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security .
      7 .
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter ; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.Two phrases : 1- " Peace and Security " and 2- " the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members .
" define and determine why it is so slow to act and is usually ineffective when it comes to " sovereignty " issues .
It 's technical arms ( which usually do n't threaten any sovereignty ) tend to be quite good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the UN Charter (the treaty that established it in the 1940s) as a successor to the League of Nations:This is from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter statesThe Purposes of the United Nations are[1]
      1.
To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
      2.
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
      3.
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
      4.
To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter statesThe Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:[1]
      1.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
      2.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
      3.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
      4.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
      5.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
      6.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
      7.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.Two phrases: 1- "Peace and Security" and 2- "the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
" define and determine why it is so slow to act and is usually ineffective when it comes to "sovereignty" issues.
It's technical arms (which usually don't threaten any sovereignty) tend to be quite good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111274</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258299420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would you say would be necessary to be an exemplary 1st world nation?  Freedom of religion? Lack of inter race  issues?  Freedom of the press?  Here is some news, those are all *new* ideas and the only reason we tout them as examples of our greatness over the rest of the world is that we want to make the world in our image.  Just like every other nation through time has sought to be the exemplary nation so that it could lead, if not by force but by *example* and have essentially international clout.  Which nations documents say the black man can only count for 3/5  of a person for census purposes only.  We owned slaves because of their race, sure the great people we like to model ourselves after are the greeks and romans also slave owners.  We wrote freedom of religion but that only really meant free to choose any religion as long as it was Christian derived and still had many exceptions, think this is not still a problem?  What happened when one Keith Ellison wanted to use a Koran, and only for the photo op, to be sworn in or the issue brought up about Obama being a secret Muslim and what that will mean.  Yeah we got a black man in the presidents office but that is more like out token black friend to prove we are not racist.  If you look back or even to many events of the current day WE have a pretty terrible track record as far as human *rights* go unless you count their inclusion in our founding documents where they only act as ink taking up space on rather nice paper.  Lets not get started on the whole censorship issue, while better than most still not what I would call exemplary.  In the end our nation will fall just like the greeks and romans and new leaders will emerge telling their own story of what makes their nation the example to follow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would you say would be necessary to be an exemplary 1st world nation ?
Freedom of religion ?
Lack of inter race issues ?
Freedom of the press ?
Here is some news , those are all * new * ideas and the only reason we tout them as examples of our greatness over the rest of the world is that we want to make the world in our image .
Just like every other nation through time has sought to be the exemplary nation so that it could lead , if not by force but by * example * and have essentially international clout .
Which nations documents say the black man can only count for 3/5 of a person for census purposes only .
We owned slaves because of their race , sure the great people we like to model ourselves after are the greeks and romans also slave owners .
We wrote freedom of religion but that only really meant free to choose any religion as long as it was Christian derived and still had many exceptions , think this is not still a problem ?
What happened when one Keith Ellison wanted to use a Koran , and only for the photo op , to be sworn in or the issue brought up about Obama being a secret Muslim and what that will mean .
Yeah we got a black man in the presidents office but that is more like out token black friend to prove we are not racist .
If you look back or even to many events of the current day WE have a pretty terrible track record as far as human * rights * go unless you count their inclusion in our founding documents where they only act as ink taking up space on rather nice paper .
Lets not get started on the whole censorship issue , while better than most still not what I would call exemplary .
In the end our nation will fall just like the greeks and romans and new leaders will emerge telling their own story of what makes their nation the example to follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would you say would be necessary to be an exemplary 1st world nation?
Freedom of religion?
Lack of inter race  issues?
Freedom of the press?
Here is some news, those are all *new* ideas and the only reason we tout them as examples of our greatness over the rest of the world is that we want to make the world in our image.
Just like every other nation through time has sought to be the exemplary nation so that it could lead, if not by force but by *example* and have essentially international clout.
Which nations documents say the black man can only count for 3/5  of a person for census purposes only.
We owned slaves because of their race, sure the great people we like to model ourselves after are the greeks and romans also slave owners.
We wrote freedom of religion but that only really meant free to choose any religion as long as it was Christian derived and still had many exceptions, think this is not still a problem?
What happened when one Keith Ellison wanted to use a Koran, and only for the photo op, to be sworn in or the issue brought up about Obama being a secret Muslim and what that will mean.
Yeah we got a black man in the presidents office but that is more like out token black friend to prove we are not racist.
If you look back or even to many events of the current day WE have a pretty terrible track record as far as human *rights* go unless you count their inclusion in our founding documents where they only act as ink taking up space on rather nice paper.
Lets not get started on the whole censorship issue, while better than most still not what I would call exemplary.
In the end our nation will fall just like the greeks and romans and new leaders will emerge telling their own story of what makes their nation the example to follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112508</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258313460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process. If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.</i></p><p>One nation, one vote. My hundred-odd collective of corrupt African countries/Asian Communist puppet states/"lets blame America for everything" South American countries trumps the U.S.A. and its few remaining sane allies.</p><p>That said, my hundred-odd collective group says Slashdot is an illegal website and all its users should be executed without trial. I have U.N. majority, what do you have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we want to improve it , we need to contribute to the process .
If we refuse to contribute , and then someone in the UN does something stupid , or goes against US foreign policy , we have no room to complain.One nation , one vote .
My hundred-odd collective of corrupt African countries/Asian Communist puppet states/ " lets blame America for everything " South American countries trumps the U.S.A. and its few remaining sane allies.That said , my hundred-odd collective group says Slashdot is an illegal website and all its users should be executed without trial .
I have U.N. majority , what do you have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process.
If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.One nation, one vote.
My hundred-odd collective of corrupt African countries/Asian Communist puppet states/"lets blame America for everything" South American countries trumps the U.S.A. and its few remaining sane allies.That said, my hundred-odd collective group says Slashdot is an illegal website and all its users should be executed without trial.
I have U.N. majority, what do you have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116382</id>
	<title>Some more information about the incident....</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1258391700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of just providing meta-commentary on the incident, it might be helpful to inject some more information about what really went down with the UN folks.</p><p><a href="http://deibert.citizenlab.org/blog/\_archives/2009/11/16/4382066.html" title="citizenlab.org">According to Deibert:</a> [citizenlab.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>1. We were told that the banner had to be removed because of the reference to China. This was repeated on several occasions, in front of about two dozen witnesses and officials, including the UN Special Rapporteur For Human Rights, who asked that I send in a formal letter of complaint.</p><p>2. Earlier, the same officials asked us to stop circulating a small invite to the event because it contained a mention of Tibet. They even underlined it in showing it to me. Because the event was just about to start, we said that we would not be distributing any more of these invitations so it was a moot point.</p><p>3. We asked repeatedly to see any rules or regulations governing this act. They did not give us any, only referring to the "objections of a member state."</p><p>4. There were in fact many posters and banners in many of the rooms that I attended, including others in our own. The video itself shows us, at one point, taking one of the other posters we have and offering to cover up the original one. They objected to that and told us this banner must be removed.</p><p>On another matter of clarification:</p><p>The UN officials did not throw the banner on the ground. They asked us to remove it and one of our staff placed it on the ground for us to consider what to do. That's where we had the discussion. When we refused to remove it, their security guards bundled it up and took it away.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of just providing meta-commentary on the incident , it might be helpful to inject some more information about what really went down with the UN folks.According to Deibert : [ citizenlab.org ] 1 .
We were told that the banner had to be removed because of the reference to China .
This was repeated on several occasions , in front of about two dozen witnesses and officials , including the UN Special Rapporteur For Human Rights , who asked that I send in a formal letter of complaint.2 .
Earlier , the same officials asked us to stop circulating a small invite to the event because it contained a mention of Tibet .
They even underlined it in showing it to me .
Because the event was just about to start , we said that we would not be distributing any more of these invitations so it was a moot point.3 .
We asked repeatedly to see any rules or regulations governing this act .
They did not give us any , only referring to the " objections of a member state. " 4 .
There were in fact many posters and banners in many of the rooms that I attended , including others in our own .
The video itself shows us , at one point , taking one of the other posters we have and offering to cover up the original one .
They objected to that and told us this banner must be removed.On another matter of clarification : The UN officials did not throw the banner on the ground .
They asked us to remove it and one of our staff placed it on the ground for us to consider what to do .
That 's where we had the discussion .
When we refused to remove it , their security guards bundled it up and took it away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of just providing meta-commentary on the incident, it might be helpful to inject some more information about what really went down with the UN folks.According to Deibert: [citizenlab.org] 1.
We were told that the banner had to be removed because of the reference to China.
This was repeated on several occasions, in front of about two dozen witnesses and officials, including the UN Special Rapporteur For Human Rights, who asked that I send in a formal letter of complaint.2.
Earlier, the same officials asked us to stop circulating a small invite to the event because it contained a mention of Tibet.
They even underlined it in showing it to me.
Because the event was just about to start, we said that we would not be distributing any more of these invitations so it was a moot point.3.
We asked repeatedly to see any rules or regulations governing this act.
They did not give us any, only referring to the "objections of a member state."4.
There were in fact many posters and banners in many of the rooms that I attended, including others in our own.
The video itself shows us, at one point, taking one of the other posters we have and offering to cover up the original one.
They objected to that and told us this banner must be removed.On another matter of clarification:The UN officials did not throw the banner on the ground.
They asked us to remove it and one of our staff placed it on the ground for us to consider what to do.
That's where we had the discussion.
When we refused to remove it, their security guards bundled it up and took it away.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110556</id>
	<title>Remember Guernica</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258291800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, these are the same people who removed the Guernica when Bush and Colin Powell were going to make their case to bomb the shit out of Iraq using bogus "intelligence."</p><p>Are you expecting the UN to be rational?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , these are the same people who removed the Guernica when Bush and Colin Powell were going to make their case to bomb the shit out of Iraq using bogus " intelligence .
" Are you expecting the UN to be rational ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, these are the same people who removed the Guernica when Bush and Colin Powell were going to make their case to bomb the shit out of Iraq using bogus "intelligence.
"Are you expecting the UN to be rational?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110272</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to be owed money!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258289820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.</p><p>Maybe we should stop buying goods made in China.</p><p>I still have my Radio Shack SW receiver kit, 29 years on, which was manufactured in Japan. You know what? I think it's great. They did fantastic quality stuff then.</p><p>China? Everything I have had from China has been crap. Mostly our fault; Our engineers designed crap, but they manufacturer it even crappier.</p><p>10\% of last years Christmas presents ( made in China ) didn't work on they day.<br>50\% of the rest ( made in China) are now broken.</p><p>This year, I'm looking for some quality toys made anywhere else. I'll pay more, and buy less, but it will be worth it in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree.Maybe we should stop buying goods made in China.I still have my Radio Shack SW receiver kit , 29 years on , which was manufactured in Japan .
You know what ?
I think it 's great .
They did fantastic quality stuff then.China ?
Everything I have had from China has been crap .
Mostly our fault ; Our engineers designed crap , but they manufacturer it even crappier.10 \ % of last years Christmas presents ( made in China ) did n't work on they day.50 \ % of the rest ( made in China ) are now broken.This year , I 'm looking for some quality toys made anywhere else .
I 'll pay more , and buy less , but it will be worth it in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.Maybe we should stop buying goods made in China.I still have my Radio Shack SW receiver kit, 29 years on, which was manufactured in Japan.
You know what?
I think it's great.
They did fantastic quality stuff then.China?
Everything I have had from China has been crap.
Mostly our fault; Our engineers designed crap, but they manufacturer it even crappier.10\% of last years Christmas presents ( made in China ) didn't work on they day.50\% of the rest ( made in China) are now broken.This year, I'm looking for some quality toys made anywhere else.
I'll pay more, and buy less, but it will be worth it in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110936</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1258295820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no compromise between a murderer and his victim.  Half-dead is still dead.  By "contributing to the process" you're giving YOUR credibility to them, and getting nothing back that you didn't already have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no compromise between a murderer and his victim .
Half-dead is still dead .
By " contributing to the process " you 're giving YOUR credibility to them , and getting nothing back that you did n't already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no compromise between a murderer and his victim.
Half-dead is still dead.
By "contributing to the process" you're giving YOUR credibility to them, and getting nothing back that you didn't already have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110860</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258294920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you even make that assumption??</p><p>anyways, anyone who jumps on the Free Tibet bandwagon, should at least read up on what life was like pre "occupation". The average citizen wasn't exactly "free".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you even make that assumption ?
? anyways , anyone who jumps on the Free Tibet bandwagon , should at least read up on what life was like pre " occupation " .
The average citizen was n't exactly " free " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you even make that assumption?
?anyways, anyone who jumps on the Free Tibet bandwagon, should at least read up on what life was like pre "occupation".
The average citizen wasn't exactly "free".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110682</id>
	<title>Egypt cedes it's sovereignty to the U.N.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258293180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110786</id>
	<title>Re:was witnessed by many</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258294140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>? The video on youtube didn't work for you. Or are you saying that video could have been faked since it was digital...</htmltext>
<tokenext>?
The video on youtube did n't work for you .
Or are you saying that video could have been faked since it was digital.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>?
The video on youtube didn't work for you.
Or are you saying that video could have been faked since it was digital...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</id>
	<title>Someone please explain</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1258294740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves? Their idea of human rights is atrocious and a billion+ people are living under oppression, with limited to no freedom of speech and no freedom of worship. They look the other way where child labor is concerned, and they have most favored trading partner status with several countries (meaning they pay little to no tariffs while not gtranting those trading partners the same privilege). Why we're in a race with China to the bottom is beyond me.</p><p>Okay, well, I do understand that is a few politicians in the industrialized nations with clout who envy the power the elite in China have and desire the middle class to be expunged from existence so that everyone is dependent upon big brother, but how do the politicians in those nations justify their actions when questioned? They certainly won't admit the truth, I'm sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves ?
Their idea of human rights is atrocious and a billion + people are living under oppression , with limited to no freedom of speech and no freedom of worship .
They look the other way where child labor is concerned , and they have most favored trading partner status with several countries ( meaning they pay little to no tariffs while not gtranting those trading partners the same privilege ) .
Why we 're in a race with China to the bottom is beyond me.Okay , well , I do understand that is a few politicians in the industrialized nations with clout who envy the power the elite in China have and desire the middle class to be expunged from existence so that everyone is dependent upon big brother , but how do the politicians in those nations justify their actions when questioned ?
They certainly wo n't admit the truth , I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves?
Their idea of human rights is atrocious and a billion+ people are living under oppression, with limited to no freedom of speech and no freedom of worship.
They look the other way where child labor is concerned, and they have most favored trading partner status with several countries (meaning they pay little to no tariffs while not gtranting those trading partners the same privilege).
Why we're in a race with China to the bottom is beyond me.Okay, well, I do understand that is a few politicians in the industrialized nations with clout who envy the power the elite in China have and desire the middle class to be expunged from existence so that everyone is dependent upon big brother, but how do the politicians in those nations justify their actions when questioned?
They certainly won't admit the truth, I'm sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112904</id>
	<title>UN's Last Straw</title>
	<author>j0ebaker</author>
	<datestamp>1258362000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I Void the UN - Government Imposters - New Internet Design Requirements - Quantum Internet Links?<br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>Hash: SHA1</p><p>The US Constitution Requires all treaties to comply with it's<br>provisions and the UN Treaties are clearly outside of the limits the<br>US Constitution imposes on Governance - so I declare the UN to now be<br>not binding on the United States of America or the United States or<br>the Several States -- err there are actually many names we've had over<br>here as the US has morphed many times in it's corporate status.</p><p>I'm just sick of corporations like "The United States of America"<br>impostering as a legitimate government.</p><p>The Internet needs a new design requirement....  No Controls, No<br>Central Controls, No Identity Requirements.</p><p>Oh, and whiles we are at it... What about using quantum physics to<br>Internet Links?  Imagine your blackberry being quantumly linked to<br>your office network and making calls via a sip client and TOTALLY<br>BYPASSING the microwave cell phone companies!!!!!</p><p>Nice!</p><p>- -Joey<br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)</p><p>iEYEARECAAYFAksBBkcACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmBDWgCeK7uKKFbG3DeKxKlBuBaBAYM4<br>nPwAni/r61HGhoOd0vvbJIZoMyo6VPMu<br>=lhX8<br>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Void the UN - Government Imposters - New Internet Design Requirements - Quantum Internet Links ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash : SHA1The US Constitution Requires all treaties to comply with it'sprovisions and the UN Treaties are clearly outside of the limits theUS Constitution imposes on Governance - so I declare the UN to now benot binding on the United States of America or the United States orthe Several States -- err there are actually many names we 've had overhere as the US has morphed many times in it 's corporate status.I 'm just sick of corporations like " The United States of America " impostering as a legitimate government.The Internet needs a new design requirement.... No Controls , NoCentral Controls , No Identity Requirements.Oh , and whiles we are at it... What about using quantum physics toInternet Links ?
Imagine your blackberry being quantumly linked toyour office network and making calls via a sip client and TOTALLYBYPASSING the microwave cell phone companies ! ! ! !
! Nice ! - -Joey-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version : GnuPG v1.4.9 ( GNU/Linux ) iEYEARECAAYFAksBBkcACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmBDWgCeK7uKKFbG3DeKxKlBuBaBAYM4nPwAni/r61HGhoOd0vvbJIZoMyo6VPMu = lhX8-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Void the UN - Government Imposters - New Internet Design Requirements - Quantum Internet Links?-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1The US Constitution Requires all treaties to comply with it'sprovisions and the UN Treaties are clearly outside of the limits theUS Constitution imposes on Governance - so I declare the UN to now benot binding on the United States of America or the United States orthe Several States -- err there are actually many names we've had overhere as the US has morphed many times in it's corporate status.I'm just sick of corporations like "The United States of America"impostering as a legitimate government.The Internet needs a new design requirement....  No Controls, NoCentral Controls, No Identity Requirements.Oh, and whiles we are at it... What about using quantum physics toInternet Links?
Imagine your blackberry being quantumly linked toyour office network and making calls via a sip client and TOTALLYBYPASSING the microwave cell phone companies!!!!
!Nice!- -Joey-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)iEYEARECAAYFAksBBkcACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmBDWgCeK7uKKFbG3DeKxKlBuBaBAYM4nPwAni/r61HGhoOd0vvbJIZoMyo6VPMu=lhX8-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110128</id>
	<title>Stupid Chinese Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258288680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They really need to stop acting like children with regards to issues about Tibet. If enough of the Tibetan people want freedom, then give it to them, and the Chinese can pack up and go home and Tibet will end up screwed, or if enough Tibetan people want to remain a part of China because of the massive economic benefits then that's fine.</p><p>They need to talk about it though and stop trying to suppress it.</p><p>Posting anonymously because I'm off to China very soon, though there is almost no-chance they would care about some comment on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They really need to stop acting like children with regards to issues about Tibet .
If enough of the Tibetan people want freedom , then give it to them , and the Chinese can pack up and go home and Tibet will end up screwed , or if enough Tibetan people want to remain a part of China because of the massive economic benefits then that 's fine.They need to talk about it though and stop trying to suppress it.Posting anonymously because I 'm off to China very soon , though there is almost no-chance they would care about some comment on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They really need to stop acting like children with regards to issues about Tibet.
If enough of the Tibetan people want freedom, then give it to them, and the Chinese can pack up and go home and Tibet will end up screwed, or if enough Tibetan people want to remain a part of China because of the massive economic benefits then that's fine.They need to talk about it though and stop trying to suppress it.Posting anonymously because I'm off to China very soon, though there is almost no-chance they would care about some comment on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113232</id>
	<title>so, in conclusion</title>
	<author>hcdejong</author>
	<datestamp>1258366560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>don't mention the wall?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't mention the wall ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't mention the wall?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110598</id>
	<title>Re:The UN is not working for us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258292280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The leadership of both parties is not elected.  The leadership positions were purchased from those elected by corporations years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The leadership of both parties is not elected .
The leadership positions were purchased from those elected by corporations years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The leadership of both parties is not elected.
The leadership positions were purchased from those elected by corporations years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110798</id>
	<title>"Chinese Firewall"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258294320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't that the term that big banks on Wall Street used to describe the ether-wind boundary between their consumer brokerage and investment banking divisions?</p><p>As in: <i>our investment banking division may have just done a deal with Hewlett Packard, but management put a Chinese Firewall in place so there was no conflict of interest when our brokerage analysts suddenly upgraded HPQ from "Neutral - Hold" to "Strong Buy".  And anyway, we think that the 3Com acquisition will give them strong networking products...</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that the term that big banks on Wall Street used to describe the ether-wind boundary between their consumer brokerage and investment banking divisions ? As in : our investment banking division may have just done a deal with Hewlett Packard , but management put a Chinese Firewall in place so there was no conflict of interest when our brokerage analysts suddenly upgraded HPQ from " Neutral - Hold " to " Strong Buy " .
And anyway , we think that the 3Com acquisition will give them strong networking products.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that the term that big banks on Wall Street used to describe the ether-wind boundary between their consumer brokerage and investment banking divisions?As in: our investment banking division may have just done a deal with Hewlett Packard, but management put a Chinese Firewall in place so there was no conflict of interest when our brokerage analysts suddenly upgraded HPQ from "Neutral - Hold" to "Strong Buy".
And anyway, we think that the 3Com acquisition will give them strong networking products...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30115970</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to be owed money!</title>
	<author>PolarBearFire</author>
	<datestamp>1258389960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're actually helping their cause with that phrasing.  Taiwan \_never\_ belonged to Communist China.  If anything, Mainland China once belonged to Taiwan.  Economically, I believe that China is shooting itself in the foot by devaluing its currency at the expense of everyone else.  China cannot prosper alone while others struggle.  Once everyone goes broke buying Chinese products, China will suffer the most.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're actually helping their cause with that phrasing .
Taiwan \ _never \ _ belonged to Communist China .
If anything , Mainland China once belonged to Taiwan .
Economically , I believe that China is shooting itself in the foot by devaluing its currency at the expense of everyone else .
China can not prosper alone while others struggle .
Once everyone goes broke buying Chinese products , China will suffer the most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're actually helping their cause with that phrasing.
Taiwan \_never\_ belonged to Communist China.
If anything, Mainland China once belonged to Taiwan.
Economically, I believe that China is shooting itself in the foot by devaluing its currency at the expense of everyone else.
China cannot prosper alone while others struggle.
Once everyone goes broke buying Chinese products, China will suffer the most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109882</id>
	<title>Can I spell hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258286940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, I can. Unfortunately, it looks like kdawson can't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I can .
Unfortunately , it looks like kdawson ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I can.
Unfortunately, it looks like kdawson can't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110574</id>
	<title>Re:Which UN policy did the poster contravene?</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1258291980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?"</p><p>Because they didn't want to be beaten and 'indefinitely detained' for 'interfering in the lawful duties of the authorities'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why did n't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again , I wonder ?
" Because they did n't want to be beaten and 'indefinitely detained ' for 'interfering in the lawful duties of the authorities' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?
"Because they didn't want to be beaten and 'indefinitely detained' for 'interfering in the lawful duties of the authorities'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114324</id>
	<title>Re:mall cops</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1258380600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does the UN's funding come from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does the UN 's funding come from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does the UN's funding come from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111282</id>
	<title>Re:Oh the UN is such a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258299480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only way we would have a genuine and meaningful UN would be to have something like an EU + USA + Canada + Australia, and leave Asia and Africa out of it.</p></div><p>Don't forget New Zealand!  They speak something like English as well!  As for the others, well, not speaking English is suspicious, but perhaps there could be another test as well, for the odd country which doesn't speak English, but which is worthy none-the-less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way we would have a genuine and meaningful UN would be to have something like an EU + USA + Canada + Australia , and leave Asia and Africa out of it.Do n't forget New Zealand !
They speak something like English as well !
As for the others , well , not speaking English is suspicious , but perhaps there could be another test as well , for the odd country which does n't speak English , but which is worthy none-the-less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way we would have a genuine and meaningful UN would be to have something like an EU + USA + Canada + Australia, and leave Asia and Africa out of it.Don't forget New Zealand!
They speak something like English as well!
As for the others, well, not speaking English is suspicious, but perhaps there could be another test as well, for the odd country which doesn't speak English, but which is worthy none-the-less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116692</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1258393260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane.  All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...</p></div><p>
The world is very vast and diverse. What do you propose? Take the "not-righteous" countries out of the debate? How can they improve, then? There must be a panel where all nations can sit and discuss human rights. Can you think of anything better? Human rights are in a pretty bad shape in many countries, but the Western countries have too many skeletons in their closets to preach human rights onto others.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise).  Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.</p></div><p>
That's the kind of broad, redundant argument that doesn't carry any information. The same could be said about any organisation or individual. If it's so, why is UN so specially nasty?
</p><p>
All I see in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ is stupid UN bashing all the time. If you hate UN so much, please propose a better method for all the nations in the world to sit and discuss. Oh, you don't want that, only want to impose US ideas on the rest of the world? Sorry, that's called bullying, and just won't cut it.
</p><p>
UN doesn't make the world perfect. But it has done a lot more good than evil since it was created. If you don't have better to say than simply bashing, shut the fuck up.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane .
All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel.. . The world is very vast and diverse .
What do you propose ?
Take the " not-righteous " countries out of the debate ?
How can they improve , then ?
There must be a panel where all nations can sit and discuss human rights .
Can you think of anything better ?
Human rights are in a pretty bad shape in many countries , but the Western countries have too many skeletons in their closets to preach human rights onto others .
The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control , wherever possible ( just like any large organization , government or otherwise ) .
Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all .
That 's the kind of broad , redundant argument that does n't carry any information .
The same could be said about any organisation or individual .
If it 's so , why is UN so specially nasty ?
All I see in ./ is stupid UN bashing all the time .
If you hate UN so much , please propose a better method for all the nations in the world to sit and discuss .
Oh , you do n't want that , only want to impose US ideas on the rest of the world ?
Sorry , that 's called bullying , and just wo n't cut it .
UN does n't make the world perfect .
But it has done a lot more good than evil since it was created .
If you do n't have better to say than simply bashing , shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane.
All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...
The world is very vast and diverse.
What do you propose?
Take the "not-righteous" countries out of the debate?
How can they improve, then?
There must be a panel where all nations can sit and discuss human rights.
Can you think of anything better?
Human rights are in a pretty bad shape in many countries, but the Western countries have too many skeletons in their closets to preach human rights onto others.
The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise).
Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.
That's the kind of broad, redundant argument that doesn't carry any information.
The same could be said about any organisation or individual.
If it's so, why is UN so specially nasty?
All I see in ./ is stupid UN bashing all the time.
If you hate UN so much, please propose a better method for all the nations in the world to sit and discuss.
Oh, you don't want that, only want to impose US ideas on the rest of the world?
Sorry, that's called bullying, and just won't cut it.
UN doesn't make the world perfect.
But it has done a lot more good than evil since it was created.
If you don't have better to say than simply bashing, shut the fuck up.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112328</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, China has proven the strategy working. Get a stockpile of those nice intercontinental nukes and take the messing with internal affairs defence when somebody argues against your conquests. Attack to silence any critics because it's fun and profitable. Israel should do the same, that is, declare the nuclear stockpile, take the internal affairs defence and then loudly repeat "yadda-nazi-yadda-antisemitism-yadda" with their hands over their ears when somebody tries to reason about the issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , China has proven the strategy working .
Get a stockpile of those nice intercontinental nukes and take the messing with internal affairs defence when somebody argues against your conquests .
Attack to silence any critics because it 's fun and profitable .
Israel should do the same , that is , declare the nuclear stockpile , take the internal affairs defence and then loudly repeat " yadda-nazi-yadda-antisemitism-yadda " with their hands over their ears when somebody tries to reason about the issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, China has proven the strategy working.
Get a stockpile of those nice intercontinental nukes and take the messing with internal affairs defence when somebody argues against your conquests.
Attack to silence any critics because it's fun and profitable.
Israel should do the same, that is, declare the nuclear stockpile, take the internal affairs defence and then loudly repeat "yadda-nazi-yadda-antisemitism-yadda" with their hands over their ears when somebody tries to reason about the issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113306</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible</p></div><p>It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, the way certain Slashdotters seem to think, if "think" is indeed the right term.</p><p>First UN: they don't exist to promote democracy, freedom or any other such ideologically charged ideals - UN is there to promote communication between governments, primarily; everything else secondary to that. When things like emergency aid occur, they are happy consequences of the cooperation that springs from the effort to communicate in an orderly manner. It is also a voluntary organisation - nations choose to participate, they are not forced to do so, and UN doesn't make laws or enforce anything, which is one of the reasons, I suspect, why we so often see that countries make promises and later ignore them.</p><p>It is of course nonsense to say that UN "exists to exert power"; that is just one of those sweeping statements that show that you don't know and don't want to know what you are talking about - you just want to spit your gall out on anything or anybody who isn't there to defend themselves. If you want to do something constructive, go and find out where that comes from instead of inventing scapegoats.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control , wherever possibleIt would be funny if it was n't so tragic , the way certain Slashdotters seem to think , if " think " is indeed the right term.First UN : they do n't exist to promote democracy , freedom or any other such ideologically charged ideals - UN is there to promote communication between governments , primarily ; everything else secondary to that .
When things like emergency aid occur , they are happy consequences of the cooperation that springs from the effort to communicate in an orderly manner .
It is also a voluntary organisation - nations choose to participate , they are not forced to do so , and UN does n't make laws or enforce anything , which is one of the reasons , I suspect , why we so often see that countries make promises and later ignore them.It is of course nonsense to say that UN " exists to exert power " ; that is just one of those sweeping statements that show that you do n't know and do n't want to know what you are talking about - you just want to spit your gall out on anything or anybody who is n't there to defend themselves .
If you want to do something constructive , go and find out where that comes from instead of inventing scapegoats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possibleIt would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, the way certain Slashdotters seem to think, if "think" is indeed the right term.First UN: they don't exist to promote democracy, freedom or any other such ideologically charged ideals - UN is there to promote communication between governments, primarily; everything else secondary to that.
When things like emergency aid occur, they are happy consequences of the cooperation that springs from the effort to communicate in an orderly manner.
It is also a voluntary organisation - nations choose to participate, they are not forced to do so, and UN doesn't make laws or enforce anything, which is one of the reasons, I suspect, why we so often see that countries make promises and later ignore them.It is of course nonsense to say that UN "exists to exert power"; that is just one of those sweeping statements that show that you don't know and don't want to know what you are talking about - you just want to spit your gall out on anything or anybody who isn't there to defend themselves.
If you want to do something constructive, go and find out where that comes from instead of inventing scapegoats.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112024</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1258306920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like the rest of the world, the U.N. would like to think that China and their human rights abuses don't exist.</p></div><p>You're aware of the fact that the United States was kicked off the human rights counsel, and that's when China became a member, correct? Unlike the United States, China has pledged to the UN to make human rights reforms -- whereas the US was stubbornly belligerant about the whole "enemy combatant" / Guantanamo Bay business, as well as a lack of shield laws for journalists, who can be jailed indefinately for publishing information critical or embarassing to the government. Apparently a "we're pretty bad, but we're working on it" means more to the counsel than "we're okay, not great, but we're not changing" from a policy standpoint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the rest of the world , the U.N. would like to think that China and their human rights abuses do n't exist.You 're aware of the fact that the United States was kicked off the human rights counsel , and that 's when China became a member , correct ?
Unlike the United States , China has pledged to the UN to make human rights reforms -- whereas the US was stubbornly belligerant about the whole " enemy combatant " / Guantanamo Bay business , as well as a lack of shield laws for journalists , who can be jailed indefinately for publishing information critical or embarassing to the government .
Apparently a " we 're pretty bad , but we 're working on it " means more to the counsel than " we 're okay , not great , but we 're not changing " from a policy standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the rest of the world, the U.N. would like to think that China and their human rights abuses don't exist.You're aware of the fact that the United States was kicked off the human rights counsel, and that's when China became a member, correct?
Unlike the United States, China has pledged to the UN to make human rights reforms -- whereas the US was stubbornly belligerant about the whole "enemy combatant" / Guantanamo Bay business, as well as a lack of shield laws for journalists, who can be jailed indefinately for publishing information critical or embarassing to the government.
Apparently a "we're pretty bad, but we're working on it" means more to the counsel than "we're okay, not great, but we're not changing" from a policy standpoint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30130240</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>haxor.dk</author>
	<datestamp>1258479180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves?</p><p>Because they are the soon-to-be world #1 economy, and no politician wants to have his country slapped with a Chinese embargo (resulting in lost trade and thus tax and duties income) because they stepped on some sore toes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves ? Because they are the soon-to-be world # 1 economy , and no politician wants to have his country slapped with a Chinese embargo ( resulting in lost trade and thus tax and duties income ) because they stepped on some sore toes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves?Because they are the soon-to-be world #1 economy, and no politician wants to have his country slapped with a Chinese embargo (resulting in lost trade and thus tax and duties income) because they stepped on some sore toes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110530</id>
	<title>Thank You</title>
	<author>rochberg</author>
	<datestamp>1258291620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, thank the U.N. for their censorship in this case.  I had never heard of this book.  Were it not for this incident, I may never have learned of it.  So I think the U.N. for bringing my attention to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , thank the U.N. for their censorship in this case .
I had never heard of this book .
Were it not for this incident , I may never have learned of it .
So I think the U.N. for bringing my attention to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, thank the U.N. for their censorship in this case.
I had never heard of this book.
Were it not for this incident, I may never have learned of it.
So I think the U.N. for bringing my attention to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110680</id>
	<title>moD up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258293120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of aal legitimate reciprocating bad Raadt's stubborn I thought it was my</htmltext>
<tokenext>of aal legitimate reciprocating bad Raadt 's stubborn I thought it was my</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of aal legitimate reciprocating bad Raadt's stubborn I thought it was my</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110438</id>
	<title>Re:Which UN policy did the poster contravene?</title>
	<author>OeLeWaPpErKe</author>
	<datestamp>1258290900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?</p></div><p>Let me guess, you voted for Obama, right ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did n't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again , I wonder ? Let me guess , you voted for Obama , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?Let me guess, you voted for Obama, right ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112276</id>
	<title>Re:mall cops</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1258310100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same goes for setting up a stand in my living room. Contact me for the agreement form and rental rate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same goes for setting up a stand in my living room .
Contact me for the agreement form and rental rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same goes for setting up a stand in my living room.
Contact me for the agreement form and rental rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30118332</id>
	<title>Meanwhile</title>
	<author>superyanthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1258398540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your president is in China discussing REAL issues, like the trade deficit, trade protectionism, the massive Chinese holdings in USD and the repeated buying of American debt by China. All while staying as far away as possible from "human rights".
<br> <br>
Face it, nobody cares about human rights, and as much as the Western media likes to blow them out of proportion it was never a real issue and now even your leadership acknowledges it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your president is in China discussing REAL issues , like the trade deficit , trade protectionism , the massive Chinese holdings in USD and the repeated buying of American debt by China .
All while staying as far away as possible from " human rights " .
Face it , nobody cares about human rights , and as much as the Western media likes to blow them out of proportion it was never a real issue and now even your leadership acknowledges it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your president is in China discussing REAL issues, like the trade deficit, trade protectionism, the massive Chinese holdings in USD and the repeated buying of American debt by China.
All while staying as far away as possible from "human rights".
Face it, nobody cares about human rights, and as much as the Western media likes to blow them out of proportion it was never a real issue and now even your leadership acknowledges it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111306</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1258299660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves? Their idea of human rights is atrocious and a billion+ people are living under oppression, with limited to no freedom of speech and no freedom of worship. They look the other way where child labor is concerned, and they have most favored trading partner status with several countries (meaning they pay little to no tariffs while not gtranting those trading partners the same privilege).</p></div><p>You answered your own question: most favored trading partner.</p><p>The USA (and everyone else) ignores inconvienent facts<br>in the name of advancing economic and geopolitical goals.</p><p>When was the last time shunning a country produced any significant reform?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves ?
Their idea of human rights is atrocious and a billion + people are living under oppression , with limited to no freedom of speech and no freedom of worship .
They look the other way where child labor is concerned , and they have most favored trading partner status with several countries ( meaning they pay little to no tariffs while not gtranting those trading partners the same privilege ) .You answered your own question : most favored trading partner.The USA ( and everyone else ) ignores inconvienent factsin the name of advancing economic and geopolitical goals.When was the last time shunning a country produced any significant reform ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves?
Their idea of human rights is atrocious and a billion+ people are living under oppression, with limited to no freedom of speech and no freedom of worship.
They look the other way where child labor is concerned, and they have most favored trading partner status with several countries (meaning they pay little to no tariffs while not gtranting those trading partners the same privilege).You answered your own question: most favored trading partner.The USA (and everyone else) ignores inconvienent factsin the name of advancing economic and geopolitical goals.When was the last time shunning a country produced any significant reform?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111188</id>
	<title>Re:The UN is not working for us</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1258298820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, thats just like us looking at the US. We can't vote in USelections, but what it's government does affects us in many ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , thats just like us looking at the US .
We ca n't vote in USelections , but what it 's government does affects us in many ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, thats just like us looking at the US.
We can't vote in USelections, but what it's government does affects us in many ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110738</id>
	<title>We must build a freedomwall!</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1258293780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the only thing that can stop future monstrosities like this. We can think about what exactly it's supposed to do later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the only thing that can stop future monstrosities like this .
We can think about what exactly it 's supposed to do later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the only thing that can stop future monstrosities like this.
We can think about what exactly it's supposed to do later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114152</id>
	<title>Re:U.N. and Human Rights...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258378620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Journalist have a long legal history of being protected in this country.  Nice FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalist have a long legal history of being protected in this country .
Nice FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalist have a long legal history of being protected in this country.
Nice FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110372</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to be owed money!</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1258290540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Up next: China takes back  Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.</p></div><p>I think it's unlikely the US would do nothing - but in any case, China would have a very hard time taking back Taiwan by force, unless they decided to repeatedly throw nukes at them until all the Taiwanese were dead. The only way China has to reach them is by ship, and Taiwan does have a significant military that possesses pretty much the same weaponry the US military has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Up next : China takes back Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.I think it 's unlikely the US would do nothing - but in any case , China would have a very hard time taking back Taiwan by force , unless they decided to repeatedly throw nukes at them until all the Taiwanese were dead .
The only way China has to reach them is by ship , and Taiwan does have a significant military that possesses pretty much the same weaponry the US military has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up next: China takes back  Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.I think it's unlikely the US would do nothing - but in any case, China would have a very hard time taking back Taiwan by force, unless they decided to repeatedly throw nukes at them until all the Taiwanese were dead.
The only way China has to reach them is by ship, and Taiwan does have a significant military that possesses pretty much the same weaponry the US military has.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111086</id>
	<title>Keeping track of US propaganda about the UN</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1258297440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've lost track of the Bush Administration's propaganda about the UN, because you're only remembering the most recent versions.  In the early Bush years, he wanted everybody in the world to support his campaign for invading Afghanistan, and he had the backing of the UN to allow him to do it.  It was only later on when the UN wasn't being helpful enough in generating support for whatever he was doing that he switched over to bashing them.  (Admittedly, it's been long enough that I've also lost track of when that was - it was probably when he was forming the Coalition Of The Willing, aka Bush League Of Nations, that he used to attack Iraq, since there was no real legitimate way to get the UN to approve the invasion of Iraq, in spite of him bullying Colin Powell into telling them that the Iraqis had Weapons of Mass Destruction.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've lost track of the Bush Administration 's propaganda about the UN , because you 're only remembering the most recent versions .
In the early Bush years , he wanted everybody in the world to support his campaign for invading Afghanistan , and he had the backing of the UN to allow him to do it .
It was only later on when the UN was n't being helpful enough in generating support for whatever he was doing that he switched over to bashing them .
( Admittedly , it 's been long enough that I 've also lost track of when that was - it was probably when he was forming the Coalition Of The Willing , aka Bush League Of Nations , that he used to attack Iraq , since there was no real legitimate way to get the UN to approve the invasion of Iraq , in spite of him bullying Colin Powell into telling them that the Iraqis had Weapons of Mass Destruction .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've lost track of the Bush Administration's propaganda about the UN, because you're only remembering the most recent versions.
In the early Bush years, he wanted everybody in the world to support his campaign for invading Afghanistan, and he had the backing of the UN to allow him to do it.
It was only later on when the UN wasn't being helpful enough in generating support for whatever he was doing that he switched over to bashing them.
(Admittedly, it's been long enough that I've also lost track of when that was - it was probably when he was forming the Coalition Of The Willing, aka Bush League Of Nations, that he used to attack Iraq, since there was no real legitimate way to get the UN to approve the invasion of Iraq, in spite of him bullying Colin Powell into telling them that the Iraqis had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112214</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please explain</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1258309380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably the same reason that this article appears on Norway's version of ComputerWorld, but I can't find it with a search of the U.S. version <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/googleSearch.do?cx=014839440456418836424\%3A-khvkt1lc-e&amp;q=china+igf&amp;x=0&amp;y=0&amp;cof=FORID\%3A9#223" title="computerworld.com">http://www.computerworld.com/action/googleSearch.do?cx=014839440456418836424\%3A-khvkt1lc-e&amp;q=china+igf&amp;x=0&amp;y=0&amp;cof=FORID\%3A9#223</a> [computerworld.com] </p><p>That doesn't answer your question...or does it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the same reason that this article appears on Norway 's version of ComputerWorld , but I ca n't find it with a search of the U.S. version http : //www.computerworld.com/action/googleSearch.do ? cx = 014839440456418836424 \ % 3A-khvkt1lc-e&amp;q = china + igf&amp;x = 0&amp;y = 0&amp;cof = FORID \ % 3A9 # 223 [ computerworld.com ] That does n't answer your question...or does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the same reason that this article appears on Norway's version of ComputerWorld, but I can't find it with a search of the U.S. version http://www.computerworld.com/action/googleSearch.do?cx=014839440456418836424\%3A-khvkt1lc-e&amp;q=china+igf&amp;x=0&amp;y=0&amp;cof=FORID\%3A9#223 [computerworld.com] That doesn't answer your question...or does it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30121216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30122912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30115970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30124532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30130240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30117006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_2239255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114152
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30122912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30116814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30117006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30130240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30121216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30124532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30113346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30114304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30112344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30115970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30111154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_2239255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30109882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_2239255.30110686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
