<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_26_0311249</id>
	<title>Google Apologizes For "Michelle Obama" Results</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1259226000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"CNN reports that for most of the past week, when someone did a Google image search for 'Michelle Obama,' one of the first images that came up was a picture of the First Lady altered to resemble a monkey. After being hit with a firestorm of criticism over the episode, Google first banned the site that posted the photo, saying it could spread malware. Then, when the image appeared on another site, Google displayed the photo in its search results, but displayed an apologetic Google ad above it. On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/25/google.michelle.obama.controversy-2/">removed from any Google Image searches for 'Michelle Obama.'</a> Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment."</i>
<b>Update &mdash; 15:38 GMT by SS:</b> A reader pointed out that this article from the Guardian says the image was de-listed simply because <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/25/michelle-obama-google-images-removed">it was removed from the blog where it was hosted</a> rather than by any "deliberate" action from Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " CNN reports that for most of the past week , when someone did a Google image search for 'Michelle Obama, ' one of the first images that came up was a picture of the First Lady altered to resemble a monkey .
After being hit with a firestorm of criticism over the episode , Google first banned the site that posted the photo , saying it could spread malware .
Then , when the image appeared on another site , Google displayed the photo in its search results , but displayed an apologetic Google ad above it .
On Wednesday morning , the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for 'Michelle Obama .
' Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment .
" Update    15 : 38 GMT by SS : A reader pointed out that this article from the Guardian says the image was de-listed simply because it was removed from the blog where it was hosted rather than by any " deliberate " action from Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "CNN reports that for most of the past week, when someone did a Google image search for 'Michelle Obama,' one of the first images that came up was a picture of the First Lady altered to resemble a monkey.
After being hit with a firestorm of criticism over the episode, Google first banned the site that posted the photo, saying it could spread malware.
Then, when the image appeared on another site, Google displayed the photo in its search results, but displayed an apologetic Google ad above it.
On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for 'Michelle Obama.
' Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
"
Update — 15:38 GMT by SS: A reader pointed out that this article from the Guardian says the image was de-listed simply because it was removed from the blog where it was hosted rather than by any "deliberate" action from Google.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954</id>
	<title>Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259229780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They never did that for the "Bush chimp" pictures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They never did that for the " Bush chimp " pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They never did that for the "Bush chimp" pictures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235332</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259233980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is ridiculous, your point is ridiculous, if a person calls me (I'm white) "the n word" then I'd be a little confused but in no way would I feel that insulted, if someone called a black person the same thing then I can totally understand why that person would be insulted/angry/hurt.

Why people need to even ask why there is a difference between this and the Bush/chimp picture truly confuses me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ridiculous , your point is ridiculous , if a person calls me ( I 'm white ) " the n word " then I 'd be a little confused but in no way would I feel that insulted , if someone called a black person the same thing then I can totally understand why that person would be insulted/angry/hurt .
Why people need to even ask why there is a difference between this and the Bush/chimp picture truly confuses me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is ridiculous, your point is ridiculous, if a person calls me (I'm white) "the n word" then I'd be a little confused but in no way would I feel that insulted, if someone called a black person the same thing then I can totally understand why that person would be insulted/angry/hurt.
Why people need to even ask why there is a difference between this and the Bush/chimp picture truly confuses me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237800</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259257380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe Google should have removed the image listing or that the Obama administration should have put pressure on them to do so. I also don't believe anyone should be prevented from creating such images.</p><p>However calling people of African heritage monkeys has been a common way to insult and degrade them for 100s of years. Not to mention as an excuse to treat them as subhuman. It still happens, see how the Spanish F1 fans treat Lewis Hamilton. To claim "The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur, but I have never, ever heard it as a racial slur before today" means you are either wilfully ignorant or a damned liar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe Google should have removed the image listing or that the Obama administration should have put pressure on them to do so .
I also do n't believe anyone should be prevented from creating such images.However calling people of African heritage monkeys has been a common way to insult and degrade them for 100s of years .
Not to mention as an excuse to treat them as subhuman .
It still happens , see how the Spanish F1 fans treat Lewis Hamilton .
To claim " The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur , but I have never , ever heard it as a racial slur before today " means you are either wilfully ignorant or a damned liar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe Google should have removed the image listing or that the Obama administration should have put pressure on them to do so.
I also don't believe anyone should be prevented from creating such images.However calling people of African heritage monkeys has been a common way to insult and degrade them for 100s of years.
Not to mention as an excuse to treat them as subhuman.
It still happens, see how the Spanish F1 fans treat Lewis Hamilton.
To claim "The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur, but I have never, ever heard it as a racial slur before today" means you are either wilfully ignorant or a damned liar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235288</id>
	<title>why is anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259233560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is a business, and, in particular, an American business.</p><p>The only "morals" are to maximize shareholder profits.</p><p>If that means caving in to public outcry or government pressure, they will do that.</p><p>If it means subverting elections (Exxon, in Chile), bribing government officials (Boeing, in the tanker deal), or blowing up villages in India (Union Carbide, in Bhopal), they will do that, too.  As long as it doesn't cost the shareholders more than it saves or gains, it is "the right thing to do".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is a business , and , in particular , an American business.The only " morals " are to maximize shareholder profits.If that means caving in to public outcry or government pressure , they will do that.If it means subverting elections ( Exxon , in Chile ) , bribing government officials ( Boeing , in the tanker deal ) , or blowing up villages in India ( Union Carbide , in Bhopal ) , they will do that , too .
As long as it does n't cost the shareholders more than it saves or gains , it is " the right thing to do " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is a business, and, in particular, an American business.The only "morals" are to maximize shareholder profits.If that means caving in to public outcry or government pressure, they will do that.If it means subverting elections (Exxon, in Chile), bribing government officials (Boeing, in the tanker deal), or blowing up villages in India (Union Carbide, in Bhopal), they will do that, too.
As long as it doesn't cost the shareholders more than it saves or gains, it is "the right thing to do".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235616</id>
	<title>double standard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259237040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I do a GIS for "Laura Bush" on the very first page is a photoshopped picture of her naked.  If I do a GIS for "George Bush" on the very first page is a picture of him eating a kitten, three pictures of him giving the finger, one picture making him look like a monkey, one picture making him look like some kind of ogre and one picture of a bush impersonator being spanked on his bare bottom.

I think some are being overly sensitive here.  Michelle Obama is an intelligent and successful woman, I think she can handle a corny picture on the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I do a GIS for " Laura Bush " on the very first page is a photoshopped picture of her naked .
If I do a GIS for " George Bush " on the very first page is a picture of him eating a kitten , three pictures of him giving the finger , one picture making him look like a monkey , one picture making him look like some kind of ogre and one picture of a bush impersonator being spanked on his bare bottom .
I think some are being overly sensitive here .
Michelle Obama is an intelligent and successful woman , I think she can handle a corny picture on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I do a GIS for "Laura Bush" on the very first page is a photoshopped picture of her naked.
If I do a GIS for "George Bush" on the very first page is a picture of him eating a kitten, three pictures of him giving the finger, one picture making him look like a monkey, one picture making him look like some kind of ogre and one picture of a bush impersonator being spanked on his bare bottom.
I think some are being overly sensitive here.
Michelle Obama is an intelligent and successful woman, I think she can handle a corny picture on the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235696</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey. Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey.</p></div><p>And where did that "it implies X" came from? Oh that's right, out of thin air. The idea that you interpret the same stimuli completely differently where the only difference is race, is the defacto definition of racism. That makes *you*, in fact, a racist. As for the maker of the monkey Obama picture, we'd not know until someone asks him/her.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey .
Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey.And where did that " it implies X " came from ?
Oh that 's right , out of thin air .
The idea that you interpret the same stimuli completely differently where the only difference is race , is the defacto definition of racism .
That makes * you * , in fact , a racist .
As for the maker of the monkey Obama picture , we 'd not know until someone asks him/her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey.
Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey.And where did that "it implies X" came from?
Oh that's right, out of thin air.
The idea that you interpret the same stimuli completely differently where the only difference is race, is the defacto definition of racism.
That makes *you*, in fact, a racist.
As for the maker of the monkey Obama picture, we'd not know until someone asks him/her.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Kreigaffe</author>
	<datestamp>1259234100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.</p><p>Sounds wonderfully progressive.  Perhaps, some day, we may even set up separate facilities for those of different racial backgrounds, so that all may feel free and comfortable amongst those to whom they can express themselves freely!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see , so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.Sounds wonderfully progressive .
Perhaps , some day , we may even set up separate facilities for those of different racial backgrounds , so that all may feel free and comfortable amongst those to whom they can express themselves freely !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.Sounds wonderfully progressive.
Perhaps, some day, we may even set up separate facilities for those of different racial backgrounds, so that all may feel free and comfortable amongst those to whom they can express themselves freely!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235446</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259235300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because that makes pointless criticism by dumb idiots somehow better then.</p><p>You know what I think? It&rsquo;s more you interpreting everything as racism. You wouldn&rsquo;t have though about the racism if you weren&rsquo;t searching for it.</p><p>I bet Michelle Obama actually stands over such irrelevant shit.</p><p>I mean we&rsquo;re grown ups. Let people draw a towel on my head and a bomb on my chest. That says something about them. Not something about me. Since they don&rsquo;t know shit about me, and everybody knows it.<br>What is the best way to handle the drunk asshole at the club who want to beat you? Make him your friend! Look at his motivations and feelings, and channel them where you want them to be. Laugh! Respect him. And before you know it, he will be your friend too and greet you ever time he sees you again.<br>Been there, done it. If it works it&rsquo;s <em>beautiful</em>! (And a frightening power to have.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because that makes pointless criticism by dumb idiots somehow better then.You know what I think ?
It    s more you interpreting everything as racism .
You wouldn    t have though about the racism if you weren    t searching for it.I bet Michelle Obama actually stands over such irrelevant shit.I mean we    re grown ups .
Let people draw a towel on my head and a bomb on my chest .
That says something about them .
Not something about me .
Since they don    t know shit about me , and everybody knows it.What is the best way to handle the drunk asshole at the club who want to beat you ?
Make him your friend !
Look at his motivations and feelings , and channel them where you want them to be .
Laugh ! Respect him .
And before you know it , he will be your friend too and greet you ever time he sees you again.Been there , done it .
If it works it    s beautiful !
( And a frightening power to have .
: D )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because that makes pointless criticism by dumb idiots somehow better then.You know what I think?
It’s more you interpreting everything as racism.
You wouldn’t have though about the racism if you weren’t searching for it.I bet Michelle Obama actually stands over such irrelevant shit.I mean we’re grown ups.
Let people draw a towel on my head and a bomb on my chest.
That says something about them.
Not something about me.
Since they don’t know shit about me, and everybody knows it.What is the best way to handle the drunk asshole at the club who want to beat you?
Make him your friend!
Look at his motivations and feelings, and channel them where you want them to be.
Laugh! Respect him.
And before you know it, he will be your friend too and greet you ever time he sees you again.Been there, done it.
If it works it’s beautiful!
(And a frightening power to have.
:D)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112</id>
	<title>This is disgusting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259231760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and frightening.</p><p>If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing (and you should be proud) to let people say stuff you don't agree with.</p><p>That includes racist bullshit too.  Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.</p><p>Christ on a stick you guys are fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and frightening.If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing ( and you should be proud ) to let people say stuff you do n't agree with.That includes racist bullshit too .
Even if it is directed at the world 's favorite US president 's wife.Christ on a stick you guys are fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and frightening.If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing (and you should be proud) to let people say stuff you don't agree with.That includes racist bullshit too.
Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.Christ on a stick you guys are fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it, but let me explain.  George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey.  Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey.  The former isn't racist, the latter is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it , but let me explain .
George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey .
Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey .
The former is n't racist , the latter is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it, but let me explain.
George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey.
Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey.
The former isn't racist, the latter is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235706</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>why is that picture "racially offensive"?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Because chimps are a different race after all, they might be offended<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why is that picture " racially offensive " ?
Because chimps are a different race after all , they might be offended : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is that picture "racially offensive"?
Because chimps are a different race after all, they might be offended :P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235212</id>
	<title>Is it possible that image search works correctly ?</title>
	<author>livingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259232720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if it is possible that search is working as it should.</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/25/michelle-obama-google-images-removed" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/25/michelle-obama-google-images-removed</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p>As according to that Guardian article above, the image in question, has been removed from its original linked location.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if it is possible that search is working as it should.http : //www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/25/michelle-obama-google-images-removed [ guardian.co.uk ] As according to that Guardian article above , the image in question , has been removed from its original linked location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if it is possible that search is working as it should.http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/25/michelle-obama-google-images-removed [guardian.co.uk]As according to that Guardian article above, the image in question, has been removed from its original linked location.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235726</id>
	<title>You're missing the point...</title>
	<author>nitro2k01</author>
	<datestamp>1259238540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those of you who are saying that it was a correct decision to remove the image, you are missing the point.
There are two different questions to be addressed, which are distinctly different.
1) Is the image objectionable?
2) Is it right to remove the image from search results?
The answer to 1) is probably in most people's eyes 'yes'.
The answer to 2) is that Google should just act as information carrier. Its search engine should rank images (and other media) based on their relevance to the search query at hand. Google may filter images based on a generic filter, such as SafeSearch. given that there is a demand for it and that the filter can be turned off easily.
Google should however not interfer with individual results. (Exception: when the law requires them to do so, however in that case the search result should clearly inform the user about this circumstance)
The fact that the image made it to the top position, or at least the first page, is a sign that many people have linked to it and in turn increased its rank. Thus it is relevant in some sense. IF it is believed that the image was ranked so highly because of an error in the algorithm, it's the algorithm that should be fixed, not the individual search result. There is a preceding case that was handled by this principle, back when you got George Dubya's page as the top result when searching for "catastrophic failure". What they did then was to modify the algorithm to make so called "Google bombing" more difficult.
--- Rant about principles ends here ---
--- Personal opinion starts here ---
And it is also my opinion that people need to be less sensitive about politically incorrect commentary. If you dislike something go ahead and criticize it. Discuss it. Or ignore it. But don't censor it. (Or call for it to be censored) It's not your damn right to go through life without ever feeling insulted. And remember, no matter how much you dislike the Michelle Obama image, or any other objectionable image, be aware that if you call for it to be censored, your opinion will be the next to be censored.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those of you who are saying that it was a correct decision to remove the image , you are missing the point .
There are two different questions to be addressed , which are distinctly different .
1 ) Is the image objectionable ?
2 ) Is it right to remove the image from search results ?
The answer to 1 ) is probably in most people 's eyes 'yes' .
The answer to 2 ) is that Google should just act as information carrier .
Its search engine should rank images ( and other media ) based on their relevance to the search query at hand .
Google may filter images based on a generic filter , such as SafeSearch .
given that there is a demand for it and that the filter can be turned off easily .
Google should however not interfer with individual results .
( Exception : when the law requires them to do so , however in that case the search result should clearly inform the user about this circumstance ) The fact that the image made it to the top position , or at least the first page , is a sign that many people have linked to it and in turn increased its rank .
Thus it is relevant in some sense .
IF it is believed that the image was ranked so highly because of an error in the algorithm , it 's the algorithm that should be fixed , not the individual search result .
There is a preceding case that was handled by this principle , back when you got George Dubya 's page as the top result when searching for " catastrophic failure " .
What they did then was to modify the algorithm to make so called " Google bombing " more difficult .
--- Rant about principles ends here --- --- Personal opinion starts here --- And it is also my opinion that people need to be less sensitive about politically incorrect commentary .
If you dislike something go ahead and criticize it .
Discuss it .
Or ignore it .
But do n't censor it .
( Or call for it to be censored ) It 's not your damn right to go through life without ever feeling insulted .
And remember , no matter how much you dislike the Michelle Obama image , or any other objectionable image , be aware that if you call for it to be censored , your opinion will be the next to be censored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those of you who are saying that it was a correct decision to remove the image, you are missing the point.
There are two different questions to be addressed, which are distinctly different.
1) Is the image objectionable?
2) Is it right to remove the image from search results?
The answer to 1) is probably in most people's eyes 'yes'.
The answer to 2) is that Google should just act as information carrier.
Its search engine should rank images (and other media) based on their relevance to the search query at hand.
Google may filter images based on a generic filter, such as SafeSearch.
given that there is a demand for it and that the filter can be turned off easily.
Google should however not interfer with individual results.
(Exception: when the law requires them to do so, however in that case the search result should clearly inform the user about this circumstance)
The fact that the image made it to the top position, or at least the first page, is a sign that many people have linked to it and in turn increased its rank.
Thus it is relevant in some sense.
IF it is believed that the image was ranked so highly because of an error in the algorithm, it's the algorithm that should be fixed, not the individual search result.
There is a preceding case that was handled by this principle, back when you got George Dubya's page as the top result when searching for "catastrophic failure".
What they did then was to modify the algorithm to make so called "Google bombing" more difficult.
--- Rant about principles ends here ---
--- Personal opinion starts here ---
And it is also my opinion that people need to be less sensitive about politically incorrect commentary.
If you dislike something go ahead and criticize it.
Discuss it.
Or ignore it.
But don't censor it.
(Or call for it to be censored) It's not your damn right to go through life without ever feeling insulted.
And remember, no matter how much you dislike the Michelle Obama image, or any other objectionable image, be aware that if you call for it to be censored, your opinion will be the next to be censored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236512</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1259247300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting so it is more offensive to make a reference to race than to call a person an idiot? It is so offensive that it should be censored?<br>I know people that find flag burning extremely offensive. So should that be banned?<br>Frankly I find calling Bush an idiot to be pretty offensive because it is insulting to him personally and demeaning to the people that voted for him.<br>I also find the image of Michelle Obama extremely offensive. She isn't an elected official, she seems like a very pleasant and intelligent woman, and I know of nothing evil that she has done. I think the spouses and the children of elected officials should be off limits for attacks.<br>Frankly I find a lot of the attacks on President Obama also offensive and I didn't vote for him.<br>The thing is that this is parody and political free speech.  Yes the person making statement is not anybody I would want to know and the statement it self is extremely ugly to me, it is still political free speech. Political free speech must be given the highest protection under the law. It has a much higher level of protection than commercial or entertainment free speech in the US. Google is a private company so it is completely legal for them to censor and if they want to act as a gatekeeper then so be it. However if they remove some results then any results they don't remove they are endorsing and that has some really big implications. They in fact could be held responsible for results returned like torrents or porn.<br>BTW freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility. It is perfectly legal, and IMHO to feel that the idiot that posted that picture is a complete waste of oxygen and to not what to do bussiness with, speak with, or be in the same room with him or her. Yea and I called him an idiot and if he is offended then good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting so it is more offensive to make a reference to race than to call a person an idiot ?
It is so offensive that it should be censored ? I know people that find flag burning extremely offensive .
So should that be banned ? Frankly I find calling Bush an idiot to be pretty offensive because it is insulting to him personally and demeaning to the people that voted for him.I also find the image of Michelle Obama extremely offensive .
She is n't an elected official , she seems like a very pleasant and intelligent woman , and I know of nothing evil that she has done .
I think the spouses and the children of elected officials should be off limits for attacks.Frankly I find a lot of the attacks on President Obama also offensive and I did n't vote for him.The thing is that this is parody and political free speech .
Yes the person making statement is not anybody I would want to know and the statement it self is extremely ugly to me , it is still political free speech .
Political free speech must be given the highest protection under the law .
It has a much higher level of protection than commercial or entertainment free speech in the US .
Google is a private company so it is completely legal for them to censor and if they want to act as a gatekeeper then so be it .
However if they remove some results then any results they do n't remove they are endorsing and that has some really big implications .
They in fact could be held responsible for results returned like torrents or porn.BTW freedom of speech does n't mean freedom from responsibility .
It is perfectly legal , and IMHO to feel that the idiot that posted that picture is a complete waste of oxygen and to not what to do bussiness with , speak with , or be in the same room with him or her .
Yea and I called him an idiot and if he is offended then good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting so it is more offensive to make a reference to race than to call a person an idiot?
It is so offensive that it should be censored?I know people that find flag burning extremely offensive.
So should that be banned?Frankly I find calling Bush an idiot to be pretty offensive because it is insulting to him personally and demeaning to the people that voted for him.I also find the image of Michelle Obama extremely offensive.
She isn't an elected official, she seems like a very pleasant and intelligent woman, and I know of nothing evil that she has done.
I think the spouses and the children of elected officials should be off limits for attacks.Frankly I find a lot of the attacks on President Obama also offensive and I didn't vote for him.The thing is that this is parody and political free speech.
Yes the person making statement is not anybody I would want to know and the statement it self is extremely ugly to me, it is still political free speech.
Political free speech must be given the highest protection under the law.
It has a much higher level of protection than commercial or entertainment free speech in the US.
Google is a private company so it is completely legal for them to censor and if they want to act as a gatekeeper then so be it.
However if they remove some results then any results they don't remove they are endorsing and that has some really big implications.
They in fact could be held responsible for results returned like torrents or porn.BTW freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility.
It is perfectly legal, and IMHO to feel that the idiot that posted that picture is a complete waste of oxygen and to not what to do bussiness with, speak with, or be in the same room with him or her.
Yea and I called him an idiot and if he is offended then good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238128</id>
	<title>Is this the picture in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259259720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the picture:</p><p><a href="http://www.flystylelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/michelle-obama-ape.jpg" title="flystylelife.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.flystylelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/michelle-obama-ape.jpg</a> [flystylelife.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the picture : http : //www.flystylelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/michelle-obama-ape.jpg [ flystylelife.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the picture:http://www.flystylelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/michelle-obama-ape.jpg [flystylelife.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236290</id>
	<title>empathy considered harmful</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1259245200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just spent several hours reviewing various axiomatic treatments of probability theory and then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this.  Major train derailment.  Stick accordion self-compacted for hundreds of yards.  Tragic loss of brain function for all involved.  Luria weeps at the carnage.</p><p>What people self-report on exit polls proves bupkus all.  Most people suck at preference reporting (ask any economist).  This nut case is thinking that if a person self-reports incorporating "is black" in their preference determination, that Michael Vick would have prevailed over Abraham Lincoln on every one of these ballots.</p><p>The sad fact of life in America is that a man who is regarded as a black man experiences life differently--and usually not better.  Would it were not the case that Obama had a longer row to hoe to get where he is now.  And I'm not even counting overcoming negative precedent: that no black had yet accomplished this feat.  Could it be that most black people in America have a stronger sense of Obama rose above, having faced it themselves?  Empathy considered harmful.  What next?</p><p>Likely many of these people voted for Obama because he rose above his blackness, and made it a non-issue, which would be hard to accomplish (the rising above part) if he wasn't *black* in the first place.  (Zeno's unknown paradox of non-issue making.)</p><p>I'm sure the average exit poll carefully distinguishes this sentiment from the depiction in the word salad above.  And then this nameless worm goes on to complain that the major media didn't smoke his troll weed.</p><p>I'm never given a rat's ass about the Turing test, but I sure would like to code a reliable troll detector, one that isn't fooled by sarcasm or wit, because we sure need more of that and less of this.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></div><p>Concluding sentence: slime-factor bonus +5</p><p>"on the basis of skin color" =&gt; via mental processes too unseemly to state clearly; to the exclusion of all other factors</p><p>"quite acceptable" =&gt; passive-aggressive fang-baring under cover of triteness</p><p>"today's moral standard" =&gt; we're all going to hell in a hand-basket</p><p>Surely these are easily detected memes?  The indirection isn't terribly clever.</p><p>From transcript gloss for <a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/10/ayres\_on\_super.html" title="econtalk.org">Ayres on Super Crunchers and the Power of Data</a> [econtalk.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>83 legal experts vs. crude statistical algorithm tried to predict Supreme Court, yet the statistical algorithm did better than the legal experts at predicting the Supreme Court's decisions. Supreme Court hates the 9th Circuit, California, but legal experts can't bring themselves to take that history into account.</p></div></blockquote><p>Russ Roberts made a rebuttal to this guy's claims in a following podcast, but I think statistics goes a long way, applied appropriately.  What I would like to correlate are the predictable trappings of the sleaze module when forced to intertwine emotion and logic in certain styles of pathological prose.</p><p>We've spent too much time trying to understand the logic of language, when often there isn't any.  Why aren't we studying instead the pragmatics of sleaze?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just spent several hours reviewing various axiomatic treatments of probability theory and then ... this. Major train derailment .
Stick accordion self-compacted for hundreds of yards .
Tragic loss of brain function for all involved .
Luria weeps at the carnage.What people self-report on exit polls proves bupkus all .
Most people suck at preference reporting ( ask any economist ) .
This nut case is thinking that if a person self-reports incorporating " is black " in their preference determination , that Michael Vick would have prevailed over Abraham Lincoln on every one of these ballots.The sad fact of life in America is that a man who is regarded as a black man experiences life differently--and usually not better .
Would it were not the case that Obama had a longer row to hoe to get where he is now .
And I 'm not even counting overcoming negative precedent : that no black had yet accomplished this feat .
Could it be that most black people in America have a stronger sense of Obama rose above , having faced it themselves ?
Empathy considered harmful .
What next ? Likely many of these people voted for Obama because he rose above his blackness , and made it a non-issue , which would be hard to accomplish ( the rising above part ) if he was n't * black * in the first place .
( Zeno 's unknown paradox of non-issue making .
) I 'm sure the average exit poll carefully distinguishes this sentiment from the depiction in the word salad above .
And then this nameless worm goes on to complain that the major media did n't smoke his troll weed.I 'm never given a rat 's ass about the Turing test , but I sure would like to code a reliable troll detector , one that is n't fooled by sarcasm or wit , because we sure need more of that and less of this.Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard.Concluding sentence : slime-factor bonus + 5 " on the basis of skin color " = &gt; via mental processes too unseemly to state clearly ; to the exclusion of all other factors " quite acceptable " = &gt; passive-aggressive fang-baring under cover of triteness " today 's moral standard " = &gt; we 're all going to hell in a hand-basketSurely these are easily detected memes ?
The indirection is n't terribly clever.From transcript gloss for Ayres on Super Crunchers and the Power of Data [ econtalk.org ] 83 legal experts vs. crude statistical algorithm tried to predict Supreme Court , yet the statistical algorithm did better than the legal experts at predicting the Supreme Court 's decisions .
Supreme Court hates the 9th Circuit , California , but legal experts ca n't bring themselves to take that history into account.Russ Roberts made a rebuttal to this guy 's claims in a following podcast , but I think statistics goes a long way , applied appropriately .
What I would like to correlate are the predictable trappings of the sleaze module when forced to intertwine emotion and logic in certain styles of pathological prose.We 've spent too much time trying to understand the logic of language , when often there is n't any .
Why are n't we studying instead the pragmatics of sleaze ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just spent several hours reviewing various axiomatic treatments of probability theory and then ... this.  Major train derailment.
Stick accordion self-compacted for hundreds of yards.
Tragic loss of brain function for all involved.
Luria weeps at the carnage.What people self-report on exit polls proves bupkus all.
Most people suck at preference reporting (ask any economist).
This nut case is thinking that if a person self-reports incorporating "is black" in their preference determination, that Michael Vick would have prevailed over Abraham Lincoln on every one of these ballots.The sad fact of life in America is that a man who is regarded as a black man experiences life differently--and usually not better.
Would it were not the case that Obama had a longer row to hoe to get where he is now.
And I'm not even counting overcoming negative precedent: that no black had yet accomplished this feat.
Could it be that most black people in America have a stronger sense of Obama rose above, having faced it themselves?
Empathy considered harmful.
What next?Likely many of these people voted for Obama because he rose above his blackness, and made it a non-issue, which would be hard to accomplish (the rising above part) if he wasn't *black* in the first place.
(Zeno's unknown paradox of non-issue making.
)I'm sure the average exit poll carefully distinguishes this sentiment from the depiction in the word salad above.
And then this nameless worm goes on to complain that the major media didn't smoke his troll weed.I'm never given a rat's ass about the Turing test, but I sure would like to code a reliable troll detector, one that isn't fooled by sarcasm or wit, because we sure need more of that and less of this.Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.Concluding sentence: slime-factor bonus +5"on the basis of skin color" =&gt; via mental processes too unseemly to state clearly; to the exclusion of all other factors"quite acceptable" =&gt; passive-aggressive fang-baring under cover of triteness"today's moral standard" =&gt; we're all going to hell in a hand-basketSurely these are easily detected memes?
The indirection isn't terribly clever.From transcript gloss for Ayres on Super Crunchers and the Power of Data [econtalk.org] 83 legal experts vs. crude statistical algorithm tried to predict Supreme Court, yet the statistical algorithm did better than the legal experts at predicting the Supreme Court's decisions.
Supreme Court hates the 9th Circuit, California, but legal experts can't bring themselves to take that history into account.Russ Roberts made a rebuttal to this guy's claims in a following podcast, but I think statistics goes a long way, applied appropriately.
What I would like to correlate are the predictable trappings of the sleaze module when forced to intertwine emotion and logic in certain styles of pathological prose.We've spent too much time trying to understand the logic of language, when often there isn't any.
Why aren't we studying instead the pragmatics of sleaze?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236762</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>ljgshkg</author>
	<datestamp>1259249400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually find it quite funny. There're lots of these human to animal (include monkey) translation images or simply modified images around. And we just look at it for fun. The image itself is probably not very respectful, but I don't see it as a racial thing. People in all race have been played by this before. Recent example is, I guess George Bush? lol

Anyway. All these human right group, female right group, or racial critics etc. always like to make a big deal out of something that no other people take it seriously. The problem is often not in the events or images they critize. It's in their imagination.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually find it quite funny .
There 're lots of these human to animal ( include monkey ) translation images or simply modified images around .
And we just look at it for fun .
The image itself is probably not very respectful , but I do n't see it as a racial thing .
People in all race have been played by this before .
Recent example is , I guess George Bush ?
lol Anyway .
All these human right group , female right group , or racial critics etc .
always like to make a big deal out of something that no other people take it seriously .
The problem is often not in the events or images they critize .
It 's in their imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually find it quite funny.
There're lots of these human to animal (include monkey) translation images or simply modified images around.
And we just look at it for fun.
The image itself is probably not very respectful, but I don't see it as a racial thing.
People in all race have been played by this before.
Recent example is, I guess George Bush?
lol

Anyway.
All these human right group, female right group, or racial critics etc.
always like to make a big deal out of something that no other people take it seriously.
The problem is often not in the events or images they critize.
It's in their imagination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236074</id>
	<title>Bing and Pixsy</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1259242860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of the eight or so image search engines I tried with "michelle obama monkey", only bing.com and pixsy.com come up with the image.<p>Just trying to be prepared for when Tiananmen happens in the U.S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the eight or so image search engines I tried with " michelle obama monkey " , only bing.com and pixsy.com come up with the image.Just trying to be prepared for when Tiananmen happens in the U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the eight or so image search engines I tried with "michelle obama monkey", only bing.com and pixsy.com come up with the image.Just trying to be prepared for when Tiananmen happens in the U.S.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236532</id>
	<title>From this it follows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259247540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that Slashdot shold apologize with Natalie Portman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that Slashdot shold apologize with Natalie Portman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Slashdot shold apologize with Natalie Portman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238542</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259263320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see this being a ploy by Microsoft to undermine google's credibility.  Pay someone to click on the link enough to kick it to the top, google goes down as a racist company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see this being a ploy by Microsoft to undermine google 's credibility .
Pay someone to click on the link enough to kick it to the top , google goes down as a racist company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see this being a ploy by Microsoft to undermine google's credibility.
Pay someone to click on the link enough to kick it to the top, google goes down as a racist company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235318</id>
	<title>Re:This is disgusting</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259233920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Freedom of speech is fine, but this isn't. My idea of freedom of speech is that it's fine with me if you say anything that's fine with me, but if you say something I'm not fine with, you shouldn't be free to say it. I don't see any problems with this principle. If everyone followed it they'd all get along with me. What else matters?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of speech is fine , but this is n't .
My idea of freedom of speech is that it 's fine with me if you say anything that 's fine with me , but if you say something I 'm not fine with , you should n't be free to say it .
I do n't see any problems with this principle .
If everyone followed it they 'd all get along with me .
What else matters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom of speech is fine, but this isn't.
My idea of freedom of speech is that it's fine with me if you say anything that's fine with me, but if you say something I'm not fine with, you shouldn't be free to say it.
I don't see any problems with this principle.
If everyone followed it they'd all get along with me.
What else matters?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236016</id>
	<title>If this isn't censorship and racist</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259242140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what is Where was this response when the 'bush monkey' pictures were all the rage? Oh, that's right, he's white.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what is Where was this response when the 'bush monkey ' pictures were all the rage ?
Oh , that 's right , he 's white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what is Where was this response when the 'bush monkey' pictures were all the rage?
Oh, that's right, he's white.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236706</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259248920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most racist thing in the world is a person yelling "Racism!". White, black, red, yellow, green...meh whatever. We are all HUMANS underneath that slim layer of pigmented dead skin cells. The ONLY way we can eliminate racism is to quit fuckin using it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...... PERIOD.</p><p>Disclaimer: I have been assigned to that group noted as Caucasian. I still usually fill in the race section on forms that I fill out as HUMAN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most racist thing in the world is a person yelling " Racism ! " .
White , black , red , yellow , green...meh whatever .
We are all HUMANS underneath that slim layer of pigmented dead skin cells .
The ONLY way we can eliminate racism is to quit fuckin using it ...... PERIOD.Disclaimer : I have been assigned to that group noted as Caucasian .
I still usually fill in the race section on forms that I fill out as HUMAN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most racist thing in the world is a person yelling "Racism!".
White, black, red, yellow, green...meh whatever.
We are all HUMANS underneath that slim layer of pigmented dead skin cells.
The ONLY way we can eliminate racism is to quit fuckin using it ...... PERIOD.Disclaimer: I have been assigned to that group noted as Caucasian.
I still usually fill in the race section on forms that I fill out as HUMAN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236786</id>
	<title>Re:Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259249640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>........and Google would do it rather than suffer a pretty serious PR black eye.</p></div><p>Black eye??? See you are continuing the problems of the world... Why does everything black mean something bad....be realistic....we  need to make like a bridge and get over it.....it was a very dark (black) time of our past...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>........and Google would do it rather than suffer a pretty serious PR black eye.Black eye ? ? ?
See you are continuing the problems of the world... Why does everything black mean something bad....be realistic....we need to make like a bridge and get over it.....it was a very dark ( black ) time of our past.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>........and Google would do it rather than suffer a pretty serious PR black eye.Black eye???
See you are continuing the problems of the world... Why does everything black mean something bad....be realistic....we  need to make like a bridge and get over it.....it was a very dark (black) time of our past...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235902</id>
	<title>Re:Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1259240280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean other than the fact that Google said they were contacted by the administration?  It's on the "apology" page.. which is more like a "no actually, you can't sue us" information page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean other than the fact that Google said they were contacted by the administration ?
It 's on the " apology " page.. which is more like a " no actually , you ca n't sue us " information page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean other than the fact that Google said they were contacted by the administration?
It's on the "apology" page.. which is more like a "no actually, you can't sue us" information page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238486</id>
	<title>She looked like a monkey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259262840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Michelle Obama did look like very much an ugly and angry monkey early in the campaign.</p><p>They went to Michale Jackson, who wasn't dead then, for advice, and transformed her into more woman like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michelle Obama did look like very much an ugly and angry monkey early in the campaign.They went to Michale Jackson , who was n't dead then , for advice , and transformed her into more woman like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michelle Obama did look like very much an ugly and angry monkey early in the campaign.They went to Michale Jackson, who wasn't dead then, for advice, and transformed her into more woman like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237416</id>
	<title>Slight difference...</title>
	<author>BancBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259254140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know what is Where was this response when the 'bush monkey' pictures were all the rage? Oh, that's right, he's white.</p></div><p>
And a monkey!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what is Where was this response when the 'bush monkey ' pictures were all the rage ?
Oh , that 's right , he 's white .
And a monkey !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what is Where was this response when the 'bush monkey' pictures were all the rage?
Oh, that's right, he's white.
And a monkey!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237412</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259254140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>' so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common.'</p><p>You're fucking kidding me, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>' so if it has been one in the past , it sure has n't been very common .
'You 're fucking kidding me , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>' so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common.
'You're fucking kidding me, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30258686</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because something is part of human nature, does not mean it's not racist.</p></div><p>Don't racial implicit association tests pretty much prove that racism is indeed human nature?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because something is part of human nature , does not mean it 's not racist.Do n't racial implicit association tests pretty much prove that racism is indeed human nature ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because something is part of human nature, does not mean it's not racist.Don't racial implicit association tests pretty much prove that racism is indeed human nature?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238576</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous Hermit</author>
	<datestamp>1259263500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Racist people think people with black skin is sub-human. What else is sub-human?<br> <br>If the image isn't a reference to skin color, then what the hell do you suggest it is a reference to?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Racist people think people with black skin is sub-human .
What else is sub-human ?
If the image is n't a reference to skin color , then what the hell do you suggest it is a reference to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Racist people think people with black skin is sub-human.
What else is sub-human?
If the image isn't a reference to skin color, then what the hell do you suggest it is a reference to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236460</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1259246760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is Google trying to censor its results? Presumably results are returned in page rank order, and sticking their fingers into this mess is going to open up a whole can of censorship/regulation woes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is Google trying to censor its results ?
Presumably results are returned in page rank order , and sticking their fingers into this mess is going to open up a whole can of censorship/regulation woes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is Google trying to censor its results?
Presumably results are returned in page rank order, and sticking their fingers into this mess is going to open up a whole can of censorship/regulation woes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237104</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>bidule</author>
	<datestamp>1259251860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if we want to reach REAL equality between all races, this also means we mustn't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about <b>the same insult</b> to a person from another race (remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures?)</p></div><p>If you believe the same insult has the same result, let me give you a counter-example.</p><p>-"This guy sleeps with every girl he lays his eyes on."<br>-"This girl sleeps with every guy she lays her eyes on."</p><p>Wouldn't you love being that guy, while thinking that girl is a slut? Being a master key aint the same as being a lousy lock.</p><p>Living in society is not a mathematical construct, you need some empathy toward the butt of your jokes or you'll end up crossing the line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if we want to reach REAL equality between all races , this also means we must n't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about the same insult to a person from another race ( remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures ?
) If you believe the same insult has the same result , let me give you a counter-example.- " This guy sleeps with every girl he lays his eyes on .
" - " This girl sleeps with every guy she lays her eyes on .
" Would n't you love being that guy , while thinking that girl is a slut ?
Being a master key aint the same as being a lousy lock.Living in society is not a mathematical construct , you need some empathy toward the butt of your jokes or you 'll end up crossing the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if we want to reach REAL equality between all races, this also means we mustn't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about the same insult to a person from another race (remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures?
)If you believe the same insult has the same result, let me give you a counter-example.-"This guy sleeps with every girl he lays his eyes on.
"-"This girl sleeps with every guy she lays her eyes on.
"Wouldn't you love being that guy, while thinking that girl is a slut?
Being a master key aint the same as being a lousy lock.Living in society is not a mathematical construct, you need some empathy toward the butt of your jokes or you'll end up crossing the line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235414</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259235000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So people should not be treated equally due to the colour of their skin? Where have I heard that before...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So people should not be treated equally due to the colour of their skin ?
Where have I heard that before.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So people should not be treated equally due to the colour of their skin?
Where have I heard that before...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237082</id>
	<title>Not quite censorship</title>
	<author>RicardoGCE</author>
	<datestamp>1259251680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google seems to have simply removed the picture from Blogspot (no different from someone removing a picture from a website they own), which is where the top-ranked pic was hosted. It still shows up on other sites, just ranked way down. I wouldn't call this Google censoring their search results. The image was hosted on their servers, so all they had to do was take it down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google seems to have simply removed the picture from Blogspot ( no different from someone removing a picture from a website they own ) , which is where the top-ranked pic was hosted .
It still shows up on other sites , just ranked way down .
I would n't call this Google censoring their search results .
The image was hosted on their servers , so all they had to do was take it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google seems to have simply removed the picture from Blogspot (no different from someone removing a picture from a website they own), which is where the top-ranked pic was hosted.
It still shows up on other sites, just ranked way down.
I wouldn't call this Google censoring their search results.
The image was hosted on their servers, so all they had to do was take it down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</id>
	<title>Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1259245080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone please explain to me how this is in any way a "racial slur". As far as I can tell, it's a political statement, and people are pulling the race card because they don't want to see the first lady criticized.</p><p>The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur, but I have <i>never, ever</i> heard it as a racial slur before today, so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common. So yeah, someone please explain to me on what grounds people are calling this a racial slur, because it isn't and never has been as far as I've ever been aware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please explain to me how this is in any way a " racial slur " .
As far as I can tell , it 's a political statement , and people are pulling the race card because they do n't want to see the first lady criticized.The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur , but I have never , ever heard it as a racial slur before today , so if it has been one in the past , it sure has n't been very common .
So yeah , someone please explain to me on what grounds people are calling this a racial slur , because it is n't and never has been as far as I 've ever been aware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please explain to me how this is in any way a "racial slur".
As far as I can tell, it's a political statement, and people are pulling the race card because they don't want to see the first lady criticized.The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur, but I have never, ever heard it as a racial slur before today, so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common.
So yeah, someone please explain to me on what grounds people are calling this a racial slur, because it isn't and never has been as far as I've ever been aware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238746</id>
	<title>Laura Bush Search Results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259264640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you search for Laura Bush with safe search off under Google images on the first page you get a picture of her standing next to George with her pants off.</p><p>Double standard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you search for Laura Bush with safe search off under Google images on the first page you get a picture of her standing next to George with her pants off.Double standard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you search for Laura Bush with safe search off under Google images on the first page you get a picture of her standing next to George with her pants off.Double standard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</id>
	<title>"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259231640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>why is that picture "racially offensive"?<br>
because the portrayed person is black?<br>
what if it was made by a black person?<br>
do we know it wasn't made by a black person?<br>
would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person?<br> <br>

if we want to reach REAL equality between all races, this also means we mustn't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about <b>the same insult</b> to a person from another race (remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>why is that picture " racially offensive " ?
because the portrayed person is black ?
what if it was made by a black person ?
do we know it was n't made by a black person ?
would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person ?
if we want to reach REAL equality between all races , this also means we must n't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about the same insult to a person from another race ( remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is that picture "racially offensive"?
because the portrayed person is black?
what if it was made by a black person?
do we know it wasn't made by a black person?
would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person?
if we want to reach REAL equality between all races, this also means we mustn't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about the same insult to a person from another race (remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236950</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259250780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Someone needs to take a history class then. There were long standing SCIENTIFIC papers which tried to tie those of African decent as being a lesser form of human, closer related to monkeys than the dominant "white" humans. This was quite prolific in the 1800's, and was ultimately used in WWII propaganda. In 1950 the scientific community banded together with 'The Race Question" to denounce the classification of modern humans into 'lesser races'; questioning the use of the term 'race' all together.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Before Darwin had published his theory of evolution, Josiah Clark Nott's and George Robins Gliddon's Indigenous races of the earth (1857) used misleading imagery to suggest that "Negroes" had been created to rank between "Greeks" and chimpanzees.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_racism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Scientific Racism</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Race\_Question" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Race Question</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>this was quite a prolific portrayal in the early film industry and advertising in the US. Just watch some old Bugs Bunny cartoons.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Someone needs to take a history class then .
There were long standing SCIENTIFIC papers which tried to tie those of African decent as being a lesser form of human , closer related to monkeys than the dominant " white " humans .
This was quite prolific in the 1800 's , and was ultimately used in WWII propaganda .
In 1950 the scientific community banded together with 'The Race Question " to denounce the classification of modern humans into 'lesser races ' ; questioning the use of the term 'race ' all together.Before Darwin had published his theory of evolution , Josiah Clark Nott 's and George Robins Gliddon 's Indigenous races of the earth ( 1857 ) used misleading imagery to suggest that " Negroes " had been created to rank between " Greeks " and chimpanzees .
Scientific Racism [ wikipedia.org ] The Race Question [ wikipedia.org ] this was quite a prolific portrayal in the early film industry and advertising in the US .
Just watch some old Bugs Bunny cartoons.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Someone needs to take a history class then.
There were long standing SCIENTIFIC papers which tried to tie those of African decent as being a lesser form of human, closer related to monkeys than the dominant "white" humans.
This was quite prolific in the 1800's, and was ultimately used in WWII propaganda.
In 1950 the scientific community banded together with 'The Race Question" to denounce the classification of modern humans into 'lesser races'; questioning the use of the term 'race' all together.Before Darwin had published his theory of evolution, Josiah Clark Nott's and George Robins Gliddon's Indigenous races of the earth (1857) used misleading imagery to suggest that "Negroes" had been created to rank between "Greeks" and chimpanzees.
Scientific Racism [wikipedia.org]The Race Question [wikipedia.org]this was quite a prolific portrayal in the early film industry and advertising in the US.
Just watch some old Bugs Bunny cartoons.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235572</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1259236680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what exactly makes the second case at all different from the first? In both cases, someone is being compared to a monkey, implying (presumably) that they're stupid. That's it.</p><p>And, no I don't know the answer and I'm not deliberately trying to avoid it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what exactly makes the second case at all different from the first ?
In both cases , someone is being compared to a monkey , implying ( presumably ) that they 're stupid .
That 's it.And , no I do n't know the answer and I 'm not deliberately trying to avoid it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what exactly makes the second case at all different from the first?
In both cases, someone is being compared to a monkey, implying (presumably) that they're stupid.
That's it.And, no I don't know the answer and I'm not deliberately trying to avoid it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238062</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259259240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In support of the level-headed poster who also responded to this:</p><p>Kerry in 2004 got 88\% of the black vote. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">Source</a> [cnn.com]<br>Gore in 2000 got 90\% of the black vote. <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/2000.htm" title="pollingreport.com" rel="nofollow">Source</a> [pollingreport.com]<br>Clinton in 1996 got 84\% of the black vote. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">Source</a> [cnn.com]<br>Clinton in 1992 got 83\% of the black vote. <a href="http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how\_groups\_voted/voted\_92.html" title="uconn.edu" rel="nofollow">Source</a> [uconn.edu]<br>Dukakis in 1988 got 89\% of the black vote. <a href="http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how\_groups\_voted/voted\_88.html" title="uconn.edu" rel="nofollow">Source</a> [uconn.edu]<br>Mondale in 1984 got 91\% of the black vote. <a href="http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how\_groups\_voted/voted\_84.html" title="uconn.edu" rel="nofollow">Source</a> [uconn.edu]<br>Carter in 1980 got 83\% of the black vote. <a href="http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how\_groups\_voted/voted\_80.html" title="uconn.edu" rel="nofollow">Source</a> [uconn.edu]</p><p>I'm not sure if the OP is sincere, but I guarantee there are people who see the 95\% and immediately are sure it's all based on race.  A small proportion surely was, but 95\% does not massively deviate from the expected outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In support of the level-headed poster who also responded to this : Kerry in 2004 got 88 \ % of the black vote .
Source [ cnn.com ] Gore in 2000 got 90 \ % of the black vote .
Source [ pollingreport.com ] Clinton in 1996 got 84 \ % of the black vote .
Source [ cnn.com ] Clinton in 1992 got 83 \ % of the black vote .
Source [ uconn.edu ] Dukakis in 1988 got 89 \ % of the black vote .
Source [ uconn.edu ] Mondale in 1984 got 91 \ % of the black vote .
Source [ uconn.edu ] Carter in 1980 got 83 \ % of the black vote .
Source [ uconn.edu ] I 'm not sure if the OP is sincere , but I guarantee there are people who see the 95 \ % and immediately are sure it 's all based on race .
A small proportion surely was , but 95 \ % does not massively deviate from the expected outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In support of the level-headed poster who also responded to this:Kerry in 2004 got 88\% of the black vote.
Source [cnn.com]Gore in 2000 got 90\% of the black vote.
Source [pollingreport.com]Clinton in 1996 got 84\% of the black vote.
Source [cnn.com]Clinton in 1992 got 83\% of the black vote.
Source [uconn.edu]Dukakis in 1988 got 89\% of the black vote.
Source [uconn.edu]Mondale in 1984 got 91\% of the black vote.
Source [uconn.edu]Carter in 1980 got 83\% of the black vote.
Source [uconn.edu]I'm not sure if the OP is sincere, but I guarantee there are people who see the 95\% and immediately are sure it's all based on race.
A small proportion surely was, but 95\% does not massively deviate from the expected outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237192</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>gtbritishskull</author>
	<datestamp>1259252640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, no one complained when Barack Obama was made to look like a monkey.  Do a little research on Google images.  Try "George Bush", "Barack Obama", and "Laura Bush".  The problem is not that they are attacking a black president.  I did not see a single picture of Barack on the first page of results that wasn't a monkey.  The problem is that they are racially attacking a first lady, which most Americans think is in bad taste (since she is not elected and has no official power so is not a straight up politician).  So, google adjusted the search results to make it return what most Americans want to see when they make the search.  (btw, before you cry censorship, google's whole purpose is to tailor their search results to the majority).</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , no one complained when Barack Obama was made to look like a monkey .
Do a little research on Google images .
Try " George Bush " , " Barack Obama " , and " Laura Bush " .
The problem is not that they are attacking a black president .
I did not see a single picture of Barack on the first page of results that was n't a monkey .
The problem is that they are racially attacking a first lady , which most Americans think is in bad taste ( since she is not elected and has no official power so is not a straight up politician ) .
So , google adjusted the search results to make it return what most Americans want to see when they make the search .
( btw , before you cry censorship , google 's whole purpose is to tailor their search results to the majority ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, no one complained when Barack Obama was made to look like a monkey.
Do a little research on Google images.
Try "George Bush", "Barack Obama", and "Laura Bush".
The problem is not that they are attacking a black president.
I did not see a single picture of Barack on the first page of results that wasn't a monkey.
The problem is that they are racially attacking a first lady, which most Americans think is in bad taste (since she is not elected and has no official power so is not a straight up politician).
So, google adjusted the search results to make it return what most Americans want to see when they make the search.
(btw, before you cry censorship, google's whole purpose is to tailor their search results to the majority).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238028</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>armanox</author>
	<datestamp>1259259060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because, you know, the African people were the only ones that were treated badly. (See Native Americans)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , you know , the African people were the only ones that were treated badly .
( See Native Americans )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, you know, the African people were the only ones that were treated badly.
(See Native Americans)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259229780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one complained when Bush was made to look a monkey</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one complained when Bush was made to look a monkey</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one complained when Bush was made to look a monkey</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235270</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1259233380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah,. c'mon, you can't blame Google for genetics!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah, .
c'mon , you ca n't blame Google for genetics !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah,.
c'mon, you can't blame Google for genetics!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236132</id>
	<title>will Michell apologize to the monkey?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259243580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should apologize to the Monkey - what an insult!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should apologize to the Monkey - what an insult !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should apologize to the Monkey - what an insult!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237144</id>
	<title>google fail again.. it's now even worse</title>
	<author>xonen</author>
	<datestamp>1259252340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now, searching for Michelle Obama results in google saying:<br>
"Related searches: Michelle Obama Monkey"
<br> <br>
Appears to me the cure was worse than the disease.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , searching for Michelle Obama results in google saying : " Related searches : Michelle Obama Monkey " Appears to me the cure was worse than the disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, searching for Michelle Obama results in google saying:
"Related searches: Michelle Obama Monkey"
 
Appears to me the cure was worse than the disease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at US politics from the outside, one thing I simply can't understand is this.</p><blockquote><div><p>African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></div></blockquote><p>You have an entire group of people who were brought to the country as slaves and even after slavery was abolished were terribly discriminated against (eg kept under control by lynching) within living memory.  Even after reform you still have serious discrimination going on into the present day.</p><p>Then you act surprised that they vote as a block for one of their own to be head of state the first time they have a real chance!  Seriously what the fuck did you expect?  That isn't racism, its human nature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at US politics from the outside , one thing I simply ca n't understand is this.African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard.You have an entire group of people who were brought to the country as slaves and even after slavery was abolished were terribly discriminated against ( eg kept under control by lynching ) within living memory .
Even after reform you still have serious discrimination going on into the present day.Then you act surprised that they vote as a block for one of their own to be head of state the first time they have a real chance !
Seriously what the fuck did you expect ?
That is n't racism , its human nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at US politics from the outside, one thing I simply can't understand is this.African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.You have an entire group of people who were brought to the country as slaves and even after slavery was abolished were terribly discriminated against (eg kept under control by lynching) within living memory.
Even after reform you still have serious discrimination going on into the present day.Then you act surprised that they vote as a block for one of their own to be head of state the first time they have a real chance!
Seriously what the fuck did you expect?
That isn't racism, its human nature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235534</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The logic is failed if the non-black minority votes 65\% and whites vote 55\% you have a 10\% over 65\% of racism. then over the total you will have 15\% of racist white voters. and a 95\%-65\%<br>=30\% racist black voters. that is if you are sure that the non-black minory is not racist at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The logic is failed if the non-black minority votes 65 \ % and whites vote 55 \ % you have a 10 \ % over 65 \ % of racism .
then over the total you will have 15 \ % of racist white voters .
and a 95 \ % -65 \ % = 30 \ % racist black voters .
that is if you are sure that the non-black minory is not racist at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logic is failed if the non-black minority votes 65\% and whites vote 55\% you have a 10\% over 65\% of racism.
then over the total you will have 15\% of racist white voters.
and a 95\%-65\%=30\% racist black voters.
that is if you are sure that the non-black minory is not racist at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30243304</id>
	<title>It's still there</title>
	<author>ksemlerK</author>
	<datestamp>1259353140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just turn off SafeSearch, and enter in the term:  michelle obama monkey image</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just turn off SafeSearch , and enter in the term : michelle obama monkey image</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just turn off SafeSearch, and enter in the term:  michelle obama monkey image</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235702</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1259238180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's because he's an idiot who behaves like a monkey. It wasn't racist, which is very different. If you think that Michelle Obama is an idiot, fine, but find another way to express that can't be misinterpreted along racial grounds.</p></div> </blockquote><p>You know, the president of the United States of America - the single most powerful human being on the planet - is a nigger. So, either the cotton-picker in question has godlike talents, or racism is no longer a significant factor in how high the blackulas can rise. But even if this particular liquorice-face is the single exception to the rule, and all other third-degree burn victims are cruelly oppressed by the Man, the fact sill remains that the monkey-girl is his <em>wife</em>, and is thus unlike to be among those victims.</p><p>Political leaders are legitimate targets for ridicule, and crying "Help, I'm being oppressed!" when you <em>are</em> The (Wo)Man is just plain ridiculous. And racism itself is pretty much as dead as it'll ever be, so stop this politically correct crap already, or be prepared for the counterreaction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because he 's an idiot who behaves like a monkey .
It was n't racist , which is very different .
If you think that Michelle Obama is an idiot , fine , but find another way to express that ca n't be misinterpreted along racial grounds .
You know , the president of the United States of America - the single most powerful human being on the planet - is a nigger .
So , either the cotton-picker in question has godlike talents , or racism is no longer a significant factor in how high the blackulas can rise .
But even if this particular liquorice-face is the single exception to the rule , and all other third-degree burn victims are cruelly oppressed by the Man , the fact sill remains that the monkey-girl is his wife , and is thus unlike to be among those victims.Political leaders are legitimate targets for ridicule , and crying " Help , I 'm being oppressed !
" when you are The ( Wo ) Man is just plain ridiculous .
And racism itself is pretty much as dead as it 'll ever be , so stop this politically correct crap already , or be prepared for the counterreaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because he's an idiot who behaves like a monkey.
It wasn't racist, which is very different.
If you think that Michelle Obama is an idiot, fine, but find another way to express that can't be misinterpreted along racial grounds.
You know, the president of the United States of America - the single most powerful human being on the planet - is a nigger.
So, either the cotton-picker in question has godlike talents, or racism is no longer a significant factor in how high the blackulas can rise.
But even if this particular liquorice-face is the single exception to the rule, and all other third-degree burn victims are cruelly oppressed by the Man, the fact sill remains that the monkey-girl is his wife, and is thus unlike to be among those victims.Political leaders are legitimate targets for ridicule, and crying "Help, I'm being oppressed!
" when you are The (Wo)Man is just plain ridiculous.
And racism itself is pretty much as dead as it'll ever be, so stop this politically correct crap already, or be prepared for the counterreaction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235222</id>
	<title>Re:This is disgusting</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1259232780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The freedom of not displaying certain images is also a part of freedom of speech.</p><p>And as long as Google is making as much money as possible for its shareholders there's no "fail" on their part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The freedom of not displaying certain images is also a part of freedom of speech.And as long as Google is making as much money as possible for its shareholders there 's no " fail " on their part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The freedom of not displaying certain images is also a part of freedom of speech.And as long as Google is making as much money as possible for its shareholders there's no "fail" on their part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237168</id>
	<title>Dilemma...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259252520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Racism vs. free speech...  Dave, my mind is going...  I can feel it...  I can feel it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Racism vs. free speech... Dave , my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Racism vs. free speech...  Dave, my mind is going...  I can feel it...  I can feel it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235558</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So something is fair as long as it applies equally to everyone, right?</p><p>How about a $500 poll tax, is that fair? I mean, everyone has to pay the same amount whether rich or poor so I don't see how it could possibly be construed as unfair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So something is fair as long as it applies equally to everyone , right ? How about a $ 500 poll tax , is that fair ?
I mean , everyone has to pay the same amount whether rich or poor so I do n't see how it could possibly be construed as unfair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So something is fair as long as it applies equally to everyone, right?How about a $500 poll tax, is that fair?
I mean, everyone has to pay the same amount whether rich or poor so I don't see how it could possibly be construed as unfair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235040</id>
	<title>Re:Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1259230980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Bush never asked, and Obama did?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Bush never asked , and Obama did ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Bush never asked, and Obama did?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235078</id>
	<title>I side with Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259231400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Google said that it wouldn't remove the picture I was quite annoyed with them, but then it suddenly dawned on me that if they removed that picture, the very next thing that would happen is that some bright spark would speak up and say "Great, now take this one down too, because it's just as bad" and before you know it, the whole situation's lost control.</p><p>It wasn't particularly fair on Google and they had to make a tough decision and I think in this instance they made the right one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Google said that it would n't remove the picture I was quite annoyed with them , but then it suddenly dawned on me that if they removed that picture , the very next thing that would happen is that some bright spark would speak up and say " Great , now take this one down too , because it 's just as bad " and before you know it , the whole situation 's lost control.It was n't particularly fair on Google and they had to make a tough decision and I think in this instance they made the right one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Google said that it wouldn't remove the picture I was quite annoyed with them, but then it suddenly dawned on me that if they removed that picture, the very next thing that would happen is that some bright spark would speak up and say "Great, now take this one down too, because it's just as bad" and before you know it, the whole situation's lost control.It wasn't particularly fair on Google and they had to make a tough decision and I think in this instance they made the right one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236840</id>
	<title>Re:double standard?</title>
	<author>prograde</author>
	<datestamp>1259250060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent points.  What was the search phrase that used to lead to GWB's White House page..."ignorant asshole" or "incompetent moron" or something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent points .
What was the search phrase that used to lead to GWB 's White House page... " ignorant asshole " or " incompetent moron " or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent points.
What was the search phrase that used to lead to GWB's White House page..."ignorant asshole" or "incompetent moron" or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239502</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259228520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's really awful when just because there has been a history of comparing black people to monkeys in the US as a way of denying their intelligence and humanity that some oversensitive people leap to the absurd conclusion that a picture of a black person being portrayed as a monkey is somehow race-baiting.</p></div><p>It is really awful, indeed. It shows that those oversensitive people are still thinking in essentially racist terms, since the first thing they look at when determining the offensiveness is the race of the one being offended. As in any other case, looking at the race at all, and taking it into account when making subjective judgment, is racist.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure it was probably drawn because the artist felt that monkeys are cute, Michelle Obama is cute, and a Michelle Obama monkey is probably even cuter, right? Because it's just stupid to imagine that there would be any racial component to it.</p> </div><p>It was drawn because the artist <a href="http://celebrityape.com/" title="celebrityape.com">draws people as apes for fun</a> [celebrityape.com], and already drew several dozen such pictures of all races, genders etc.</p><p>Of course, I'm sure that he had absolutely no racial reference in mind while drawing <a href="http://celebrityape.com/sarah-palin-is-an-ape/" title="celebrityape.com">Sarah Palin</a> [celebrityape.com] or <a href="http://celebrityape.com/cindy-mccain-is-an-ape/" title="celebrityape.com">Cindy McCain</a> [celebrityape.com] as an ape, but while drawing Michelle Obama, or <a href="http://celebrityape.com/barack-obama/" title="celebrityape.com">Barack Obama</a> [celebrityape.com], or <a href="http://celebrityape.com/nelson-mandela/" title="celebrityape.com">Nelson Mandela</a> [celebrityape.com], he was gleefully thinking of how funnily offensive it is in the context of the race being depicted. Because everyone always thinks about race all the time.</p><p>After all, you seem to do that, so how else could it possibly be for everyone else, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really awful when just because there has been a history of comparing black people to monkeys in the US as a way of denying their intelligence and humanity that some oversensitive people leap to the absurd conclusion that a picture of a black person being portrayed as a monkey is somehow race-baiting.It is really awful , indeed .
It shows that those oversensitive people are still thinking in essentially racist terms , since the first thing they look at when determining the offensiveness is the race of the one being offended .
As in any other case , looking at the race at all , and taking it into account when making subjective judgment , is racist.I 'm sure it was probably drawn because the artist felt that monkeys are cute , Michelle Obama is cute , and a Michelle Obama monkey is probably even cuter , right ?
Because it 's just stupid to imagine that there would be any racial component to it .
It was drawn because the artist draws people as apes for fun [ celebrityape.com ] , and already drew several dozen such pictures of all races , genders etc.Of course , I 'm sure that he had absolutely no racial reference in mind while drawing Sarah Palin [ celebrityape.com ] or Cindy McCain [ celebrityape.com ] as an ape , but while drawing Michelle Obama , or Barack Obama [ celebrityape.com ] , or Nelson Mandela [ celebrityape.com ] , he was gleefully thinking of how funnily offensive it is in the context of the race being depicted .
Because everyone always thinks about race all the time.After all , you seem to do that , so how else could it possibly be for everyone else , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really awful when just because there has been a history of comparing black people to monkeys in the US as a way of denying their intelligence and humanity that some oversensitive people leap to the absurd conclusion that a picture of a black person being portrayed as a monkey is somehow race-baiting.It is really awful, indeed.
It shows that those oversensitive people are still thinking in essentially racist terms, since the first thing they look at when determining the offensiveness is the race of the one being offended.
As in any other case, looking at the race at all, and taking it into account when making subjective judgment, is racist.I'm sure it was probably drawn because the artist felt that monkeys are cute, Michelle Obama is cute, and a Michelle Obama monkey is probably even cuter, right?
Because it's just stupid to imagine that there would be any racial component to it.
It was drawn because the artist draws people as apes for fun [celebrityape.com], and already drew several dozen such pictures of all races, genders etc.Of course, I'm sure that he had absolutely no racial reference in mind while drawing Sarah Palin [celebrityape.com] or Cindy McCain [celebrityape.com] as an ape, but while drawing Michelle Obama, or Barack Obama [celebrityape.com], or Nelson Mandela [celebrityape.com], he was gleefully thinking of how funnily offensive it is in the context of the race being depicted.
Because everyone always thinks about race all the time.After all, you seem to do that, so how else could it possibly be for everyone else, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235156</id>
	<title>Correction</title>
	<author>Peregr1n</author>
	<datestamp>1259232240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The site showing the image has removed it. Google don't appear to have 'removed' it from their index, just promptly re-indexed the offending site.<br>However, I don't remember Google (/youtube) being this proactive when offensive Thai royalty videos appeared. Or the 'Bush chimp' images (although those were funny*)<br>*IRONY</htmltext>
<tokenext>The site showing the image has removed it .
Google do n't appear to have 'removed ' it from their index , just promptly re-indexed the offending site.However , I do n't remember Google ( /youtube ) being this proactive when offensive Thai royalty videos appeared .
Or the 'Bush chimp ' images ( although those were funny * ) * IRONY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The site showing the image has removed it.
Google don't appear to have 'removed' it from their index, just promptly re-indexed the offending site.However, I don't remember Google (/youtube) being this proactive when offensive Thai royalty videos appeared.
Or the 'Bush chimp' images (although those were funny*)*IRONY</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235472</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>16Chapel</author>
	<datestamp>1259235600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the fuck modded this insightful?  This coward keeps copy/pasting this exact same post every time Obama is mentioned.  Dude - if you really believed this you'd post it under your own account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the fuck modded this insightful ?
This coward keeps copy/pasting this exact same post every time Obama is mentioned .
Dude - if you really believed this you 'd post it under your own account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the fuck modded this insightful?
This coward keeps copy/pasting this exact same post every time Obama is mentioned.
Dude - if you really believed this you'd post it under your own account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238148</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1259259900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it, but let me explain.  George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey.  Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey.  The former isn't racist, the latter is.</p></div><p>How do you know that the latter is the case? The fact that you believe that Michelle Obama was photoshopped to look like a monkey because of her race indicates that you are the rascist. We have no evidence that the person who created the image did so because of race. It may be that they think she isn't very bright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it , but let me explain .
George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey .
Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey .
The former is n't racist , the latter is.How do you know that the latter is the case ?
The fact that you believe that Michelle Obama was photoshopped to look like a monkey because of her race indicates that you are the rascist .
We have no evidence that the person who created the image did so because of race .
It may be that they think she is n't very bright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it, but let me explain.
George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey.
Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey.
The former isn't racist, the latter is.How do you know that the latter is the case?
The fact that you believe that Michelle Obama was photoshopped to look like a monkey because of her race indicates that you are the rascist.
We have no evidence that the person who created the image did so because of race.
It may be that they think she isn't very bright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235846</id>
	<title>Re:This is disgusting</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1259239680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its America, Google is free to do whatever they want with their servers and services they provide.  That includes both censorship and being racist if they choose.</p><p>In turn, you get the to not do business with them if you don't like it.</p><p>Favorite US president's wife?  I'm not sure I see it.  It shows you're bias however.  Its rather silly to make such a bold statement before we're even a year into it.  Right now, it is actually race that makes them popular, not any action or lack of action, they haven't actually DONE anything yet.  Being black is making them popular because the US is still shocked that it happened.</p><p>Google is free to do whatever they want with their services, there are other search engines, and there is no rule, written or unwritten that requires you to be listed on a search engine in order for your life to continue.</p><p>God I hate people that scream censorship for retarded freaking reasons.  Yes its censorship, it happens EVERY DAY.  You do so yourself, every day.  How do I know?  Walk through your day to day, thinking about EVERY SINGLE ACTION YOU TAKE and word you speak.  Come back in 24 hours and let us know how many times you didn't do something or didn't say something because of the effect it might have.</p><p>I, generally, censor the hell out of my words throughout the day.   If I didn't I'm pretty sure I'd have no friends and possibly get my ass kicked at least once or twice a day.  Its just a fact of life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its America , Google is free to do whatever they want with their servers and services they provide .
That includes both censorship and being racist if they choose.In turn , you get the to not do business with them if you do n't like it.Favorite US president 's wife ?
I 'm not sure I see it .
It shows you 're bias however .
Its rather silly to make such a bold statement before we 're even a year into it .
Right now , it is actually race that makes them popular , not any action or lack of action , they have n't actually DONE anything yet .
Being black is making them popular because the US is still shocked that it happened.Google is free to do whatever they want with their services , there are other search engines , and there is no rule , written or unwritten that requires you to be listed on a search engine in order for your life to continue.God I hate people that scream censorship for retarded freaking reasons .
Yes its censorship , it happens EVERY DAY .
You do so yourself , every day .
How do I know ?
Walk through your day to day , thinking about EVERY SINGLE ACTION YOU TAKE and word you speak .
Come back in 24 hours and let us know how many times you did n't do something or did n't say something because of the effect it might have.I , generally , censor the hell out of my words throughout the day .
If I did n't I 'm pretty sure I 'd have no friends and possibly get my ass kicked at least once or twice a day .
Its just a fact of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its America, Google is free to do whatever they want with their servers and services they provide.
That includes both censorship and being racist if they choose.In turn, you get the to not do business with them if you don't like it.Favorite US president's wife?
I'm not sure I see it.
It shows you're bias however.
Its rather silly to make such a bold statement before we're even a year into it.
Right now, it is actually race that makes them popular, not any action or lack of action, they haven't actually DONE anything yet.
Being black is making them popular because the US is still shocked that it happened.Google is free to do whatever they want with their services, there are other search engines, and there is no rule, written or unwritten that requires you to be listed on a search engine in order for your life to continue.God I hate people that scream censorship for retarded freaking reasons.
Yes its censorship, it happens EVERY DAY.
You do so yourself, every day.
How do I know?
Walk through your day to day, thinking about EVERY SINGLE ACTION YOU TAKE and word you speak.
Come back in 24 hours and let us know how many times you didn't do something or didn't say something because of the effect it might have.I, generally, censor the hell out of my words throughout the day.
If I didn't I'm pretty sure I'd have no friends and possibly get my ass kicked at least once or twice a day.
Its just a fact of life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235242</id>
	<title>Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259233020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.
<p>
In the past, numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians, and no one apologized for the caricatures.
</p><p>
In much the same way, the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama.  Allow me to explain.
</p><p>
During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
</p><p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President .
In the past , numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians , and no one apologized for the caricatures .
In much the same way , the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama .
Allow me to explain .
During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.
In the past, numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians, and no one apologized for the caricatures.
In much the same way, the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama.
Allow me to explain.
During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235980</id>
	<title>oh boy, did they just screw up....</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1259241540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've heard the argument before: "we are just a search engine, we arent responsible for child porn, warez, illegal mp3s or anythign like that that show up in our results"... unless its a picture of Michelle Obama... If you can flush that you have proved you can flush the other things as well. So whats next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've heard the argument before : " we are just a search engine , we arent responsible for child porn , warez , illegal mp3s or anythign like that that show up in our results " ... unless its a picture of Michelle Obama... If you can flush that you have proved you can flush the other things as well .
So whats next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've heard the argument before: "we are just a search engine, we arent responsible for child porn, warez, illegal mp3s or anythign like that that show up in our results"... unless its a picture of Michelle Obama... If you can flush that you have proved you can flush the other things as well.
So whats next?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238880</id>
	<title>Let's see what we find for George Bush</title>
	<author>Quila</author>
	<datestamp>1259265840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Page 1 has "George Bush looks like a monkey," and Bush eating a kitten and giving the finger.</p><p>Only 9 of the 21 results are regular photos, the rest being meant to criticize or make fun of Bush.</p><p>And Google takes action over one Michelle Obama photo?</p><p>Talk about double standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Page 1 has " George Bush looks like a monkey , " and Bush eating a kitten and giving the finger.Only 9 of the 21 results are regular photos , the rest being meant to criticize or make fun of Bush.And Google takes action over one Michelle Obama photo ? Talk about double standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Page 1 has "George Bush looks like a monkey," and Bush eating a kitten and giving the finger.Only 9 of the 21 results are regular photos, the rest being meant to criticize or make fun of Bush.And Google takes action over one Michelle Obama photo?Talk about double standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236036</id>
	<title>"Michelle Obama ape"...</title>
	<author>w4rl5ck</author>
	<datestamp>1259242320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... still does the trick. Ugly picture, though.</p><p>One remark:</p><p>&gt; That includes racist bullshit too. Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.</p><p>racism is very close to fascism, and that's not an opinion, it's a crime. But it's still not worth censoring the internet, in the opposite: you must be able to see "shit" if you want to fight it. If it's just unnoticed, it's still there. Like that hiding game you play with childs: closing your eyes really does not make yourself disappear - or the bad things existing in our world, for that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... still does the trick .
Ugly picture , though.One remark : &gt; That includes racist bullshit too .
Even if it is directed at the world 's favorite US president 's wife.racism is very close to fascism , and that 's not an opinion , it 's a crime .
But it 's still not worth censoring the internet , in the opposite : you must be able to see " shit " if you want to fight it .
If it 's just unnoticed , it 's still there .
Like that hiding game you play with childs : closing your eyes really does not make yourself disappear - or the bad things existing in our world , for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... still does the trick.
Ugly picture, though.One remark:&gt; That includes racist bullshit too.
Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.racism is very close to fascism, and that's not an opinion, it's a crime.
But it's still not worth censoring the internet, in the opposite: you must be able to see "shit" if you want to fight it.
If it's just unnoticed, it's still there.
Like that hiding game you play with childs: closing your eyes really does not make yourself disappear - or the bad things existing in our world, for that matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237894</id>
	<title>How is this different than Bush or Chimp??</title>
	<author>zish</author>
	<datestamp>1259257980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me post this disclaimer that I am as Democrat as they come.
I somehow don't see the difference between this and depicting George W. as a chimp. Must be the whole "race" thing, or something. C'mon people! Stop feeding the flames! If you're going to put this kind of energy into something so trivial as a human-less web image search aggregator, you're only going to make it worse. The Google juggernaut is only doing it's job, which is to crawl the web, and give you, based on mathematic algorithms, what -it- deems to be the most relevant results. Racism is a human condition, not a mathematical model. Google even tried to fix it, but the humans figured a way around it.
Incidently, do a Google Image search for "George Bush". I guarantee that you will see at least one comparing him to a chimp. I never heard someone put up a stink about Google displaying these on the first result page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me post this disclaimer that I am as Democrat as they come .
I somehow do n't see the difference between this and depicting George W. as a chimp .
Must be the whole " race " thing , or something .
C'mon people !
Stop feeding the flames !
If you 're going to put this kind of energy into something so trivial as a human-less web image search aggregator , you 're only going to make it worse .
The Google juggernaut is only doing it 's job , which is to crawl the web , and give you , based on mathematic algorithms , what -it- deems to be the most relevant results .
Racism is a human condition , not a mathematical model .
Google even tried to fix it , but the humans figured a way around it .
Incidently , do a Google Image search for " George Bush " .
I guarantee that you will see at least one comparing him to a chimp .
I never heard someone put up a stink about Google displaying these on the first result page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me post this disclaimer that I am as Democrat as they come.
I somehow don't see the difference between this and depicting George W. as a chimp.
Must be the whole "race" thing, or something.
C'mon people!
Stop feeding the flames!
If you're going to put this kind of energy into something so trivial as a human-less web image search aggregator, you're only going to make it worse.
The Google juggernaut is only doing it's job, which is to crawl the web, and give you, based on mathematic algorithms, what -it- deems to be the most relevant results.
Racism is a human condition, not a mathematical model.
Google even tried to fix it, but the humans figured a way around it.
Incidently, do a Google Image search for "George Bush".
I guarantee that you will see at least one comparing him to a chimp.
I never heard someone put up a stink about Google displaying these on the first result page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235208</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1259232660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a)Why is that picture racially offensive?<br>b)Would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person?</p><p>a) because black people have often *racially* abused in terms comparing them to monkeys.  Examples:  in UK until *relatively* recently people at soccer matches would wave bananas and shout 'monkey' at black players. This still happens a lot in eastern and some parts of southern Europe.  In India and Pakistan black cricketers (i.e African/African-Carribean, usually those from UK, West Indies, South Africa, Zimbabwe) are routinely subjected to shouts of 'bandar' from the crowd, bandar being the Hindi word for monkey.  Historically people have misrepresented Darwin's theory and presented Africans as being less evolved and closer to the apes than white people and used this to justify racial discrimination.</p><p>b) No, it would just be offensive.  There would not the *well known and widely understood* racial context.</p><p>These points are so obvious as to be almost self evident.  To claim not to be aware of them or to understand them is perverse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) Why is that picture racially offensive ? b ) Would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person ? a ) because black people have often * racially * abused in terms comparing them to monkeys .
Examples : in UK until * relatively * recently people at soccer matches would wave bananas and shout 'monkey ' at black players .
This still happens a lot in eastern and some parts of southern Europe .
In India and Pakistan black cricketers ( i.e African/African-Carribean , usually those from UK , West Indies , South Africa , Zimbabwe ) are routinely subjected to shouts of 'bandar ' from the crowd , bandar being the Hindi word for monkey .
Historically people have misrepresented Darwin 's theory and presented Africans as being less evolved and closer to the apes than white people and used this to justify racial discrimination.b ) No , it would just be offensive .
There would not the * well known and widely understood * racial context.These points are so obvious as to be almost self evident .
To claim not to be aware of them or to understand them is perverse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a)Why is that picture racially offensive?b)Would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person?a) because black people have often *racially* abused in terms comparing them to monkeys.
Examples:  in UK until *relatively* recently people at soccer matches would wave bananas and shout 'monkey' at black players.
This still happens a lot in eastern and some parts of southern Europe.
In India and Pakistan black cricketers (i.e African/African-Carribean, usually those from UK, West Indies, South Africa, Zimbabwe) are routinely subjected to shouts of 'bandar' from the crowd, bandar being the Hindi word for monkey.
Historically people have misrepresented Darwin's theory and presented Africans as being less evolved and closer to the apes than white people and used this to justify racial discrimination.b) No, it would just be offensive.
There would not the *well known and widely understood* racial context.These points are so obvious as to be almost self evident.
To claim not to be aware of them or to understand them is perverse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236194</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1259244360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The picture is racially offensive because it represents a frequently used racial slur ("black people are inferior, like monkeys"). Do I really need to point that out? No, I guess I don't, that should have been obvious to you. If so, why did you choose to ignore it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The picture is racially offensive because it represents a frequently used racial slur ( " black people are inferior , like monkeys " ) .
Do I really need to point that out ?
No , I guess I do n't , that should have been obvious to you .
If so , why did you choose to ignore it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The picture is racially offensive because it represents a frequently used racial slur ("black people are inferior, like monkeys").
Do I really need to point that out?
No, I guess I don't, that should have been obvious to you.
If so, why did you choose to ignore it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235198</id>
	<title>Censorship</title>
	<author>Andtalath</author>
	<datestamp>1259232600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh god.
How stupid of them.

They just illustrated that they do take responsibility for the entire content of the web.

Congratulations Google, you just lost a lot of credibility on the internet for me.

Anyone know of a search engine which doesn't censor such things?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh god .
How stupid of them .
They just illustrated that they do take responsibility for the entire content of the web .
Congratulations Google , you just lost a lot of credibility on the internet for me .
Anyone know of a search engine which does n't censor such things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh god.
How stupid of them.
They just illustrated that they do take responsibility for the entire content of the web.
Congratulations Google, you just lost a lot of credibility on the internet for me.
Anyone know of a search engine which doesn't censor such things?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237970</id>
	<title>Pretty sure this is the pic in question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259258700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqhcPgg\_YUQ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = AqhcPgg \ _YUQ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqhcPgg\_YUQ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235434</id>
	<title>Re:I side with Google</title>
	<author>DomHawken</author>
	<datestamp>1259235180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and then when 'the whole situation's lost control' another search engine springs up that doesn't censor content based on knee-jerk reactions and potential bad press. 'Fair on Google' doesn't come into it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and then when 'the whole situation 's lost control ' another search engine springs up that does n't censor content based on knee-jerk reactions and potential bad press .
'Fair on Google ' does n't come into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and then when 'the whole situation's lost control' another search engine springs up that doesn't censor content based on knee-jerk reactions and potential bad press.
'Fair on Google' doesn't come into it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235774</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.</p></div><p>Are you really so dense that you can't see that language and expression must be interpreted in the historical and social context in which it is done? That's not to say that a white person making a comparison between a black person and a monkey is always <i>inherently</i> racist, but given our history, it is much more than a reasonable conclusion. A black person making the same comparison is less likely to be motivated by racism in the same situation. Historically, racial oppression and ridicule has flowed from whites to blacks. This is a fact, and interpreting things <i>in light of this fact</i> is not "unprogressive," but, in fact, is necessary.</p><p>This is subject to the caveat, of course, that blacks can be racist too. In fact, there are some interesting studies showing that African Americans also show some implicit anti-black biases, but this is to be expected since they grew up in the same culture European Americans did. But in terms of explicit racism, there's no comparison.</p><p>People that pretend like what we say shouldn't be interpreted in terms of our race reminds me of the kid who has just learned that swear words can mean something different, and benign, in other languages. They go around swearing over and over, and when someone tells them to stop, they say "No, I'm not cursing, I'm saying XXX in Norwegian!" The obvious answer to this is, "Yes, but you're not Norwegian." The point is that All communication must be interpreted in context. The kid knew that, and was indeed using that fact to annoy other people. The child's defense is not any better than your dismissal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see , so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.Are you really so dense that you ca n't see that language and expression must be interpreted in the historical and social context in which it is done ?
That 's not to say that a white person making a comparison between a black person and a monkey is always inherently racist , but given our history , it is much more than a reasonable conclusion .
A black person making the same comparison is less likely to be motivated by racism in the same situation .
Historically , racial oppression and ridicule has flowed from whites to blacks .
This is a fact , and interpreting things in light of this fact is not " unprogressive , " but , in fact , is necessary.This is subject to the caveat , of course , that blacks can be racist too .
In fact , there are some interesting studies showing that African Americans also show some implicit anti-black biases , but this is to be expected since they grew up in the same culture European Americans did .
But in terms of explicit racism , there 's no comparison.People that pretend like what we say should n't be interpreted in terms of our race reminds me of the kid who has just learned that swear words can mean something different , and benign , in other languages .
They go around swearing over and over , and when someone tells them to stop , they say " No , I 'm not cursing , I 'm saying XXX in Norwegian !
" The obvious answer to this is , " Yes , but you 're not Norwegian .
" The point is that All communication must be interpreted in context .
The kid knew that , and was indeed using that fact to annoy other people .
The child 's defense is not any better than your dismissal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.Are you really so dense that you can't see that language and expression must be interpreted in the historical and social context in which it is done?
That's not to say that a white person making a comparison between a black person and a monkey is always inherently racist, but given our history, it is much more than a reasonable conclusion.
A black person making the same comparison is less likely to be motivated by racism in the same situation.
Historically, racial oppression and ridicule has flowed from whites to blacks.
This is a fact, and interpreting things in light of this fact is not "unprogressive," but, in fact, is necessary.This is subject to the caveat, of course, that blacks can be racist too.
In fact, there are some interesting studies showing that African Americans also show some implicit anti-black biases, but this is to be expected since they grew up in the same culture European Americans did.
But in terms of explicit racism, there's no comparison.People that pretend like what we say shouldn't be interpreted in terms of our race reminds me of the kid who has just learned that swear words can mean something different, and benign, in other languages.
They go around swearing over and over, and when someone tells them to stop, they say "No, I'm not cursing, I'm saying XXX in Norwegian!
" The obvious answer to this is, "Yes, but you're not Norwegian.
" The point is that All communication must be interpreted in context.
The kid knew that, and was indeed using that fact to annoy other people.
The child's defense is not any better than your dismissal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235770</id>
	<title>Surprisingly, the artist also did images of whites</title>
	<author>kdataman</author>
	<datestamp>1259238900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The source for this image is a now defunct site called celebrityapes.com (misspelled on at least one referring site).  I visited the site 2 days ago after correcting the spelling and before it went down.  It had pictures of dozens of celebrities, most not black, done to look like apes.  Check the Internet Archive for this site and you will see it includes Bill and Hilary Clinton,
Katie Holmes, Martin Scorsese and Mariah Carey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The source for this image is a now defunct site called celebrityapes.com ( misspelled on at least one referring site ) .
I visited the site 2 days ago after correcting the spelling and before it went down .
It had pictures of dozens of celebrities , most not black , done to look like apes .
Check the Internet Archive for this site and you will see it includes Bill and Hilary Clinton , Katie Holmes , Martin Scorsese and Mariah Carey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The source for this image is a now defunct site called celebrityapes.com (misspelled on at least one referring site).
I visited the site 2 days ago after correcting the spelling and before it went down.
It had pictures of dozens of celebrities, most not black, done to look like apes.
Check the Internet Archive for this site and you will see it includes Bill and Hilary Clinton,
Katie Holmes, Martin Scorsese and Mariah Carey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238106</id>
	<title>Racist?</title>
	<author>Evildonald</author>
	<datestamp>1259259480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the hell is this photo racist?  In G.W. Bush's last term I must've seen 20 photos of him being compared to a chimp, either superimposed (which he did resemble) or side-by-side<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. was that racist as well?  I can't stand these double standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell is this photo racist ?
In G.W .
Bush 's last term I must 've seen 20 photos of him being compared to a chimp , either superimposed ( which he did resemble ) or side-by-side .. was that racist as well ?
I ca n't stand these double standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell is this photo racist?
In G.W.
Bush's last term I must've seen 20 photos of him being compared to a chimp, either superimposed (which he did resemble) or side-by-side .. was that racist as well?
I can't stand these double standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235090</id>
	<title>mod\ doWn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259231580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>maintained that too a8d as BSD sinqks</htmltext>
<tokenext>maintained that too a8d as BSD sinqks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maintained that too a8d as BSD sinqks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238856</id>
	<title>What a clusterfuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259265660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the non-technical world at large is unable to understand the real issue from the CNN article, since it sort of seems like it is *Google* that is making the picture available to people. Of course everyone here knows that Google is just providing a link to something that is already there, and that it is a cold, emotionless and apolitical machine deciding that this link is popular enough to be highly rated. Without that background knowledge, which many people don't have and which the CNN article doesn't explain too well, any sort of opinion on this issue will be misguided.</p><p>It goes further than that, since this has NOTHING to do with free speech, unlike what many comments here suggest. The US right to free speech is about how the government cannot prevent your speech, and since Google isn't the government, free speech has no bearing on what Google does. Furthermore, since e.g. making child porn available is illegal in most places, including the US, it is just completely bogus that free speech means that you have a right to distribute any kind of information you want. On top of that, even if Google was the government, it would not have an obligation to make this link available. Free speech has nothing to do with this.</p><p>Google can't take down links to images like this just due to public outcry, because then it would never stop with people trying to get Google to take all sorts of things down. That is the essence of Google's involvement here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the non-technical world at large is unable to understand the real issue from the CNN article , since it sort of seems like it is * Google * that is making the picture available to people .
Of course everyone here knows that Google is just providing a link to something that is already there , and that it is a cold , emotionless and apolitical machine deciding that this link is popular enough to be highly rated .
Without that background knowledge , which many people do n't have and which the CNN article does n't explain too well , any sort of opinion on this issue will be misguided.It goes further than that , since this has NOTHING to do with free speech , unlike what many comments here suggest .
The US right to free speech is about how the government can not prevent your speech , and since Google is n't the government , free speech has no bearing on what Google does .
Furthermore , since e.g .
making child porn available is illegal in most places , including the US , it is just completely bogus that free speech means that you have a right to distribute any kind of information you want .
On top of that , even if Google was the government , it would not have an obligation to make this link available .
Free speech has nothing to do with this.Google ca n't take down links to images like this just due to public outcry , because then it would never stop with people trying to get Google to take all sorts of things down .
That is the essence of Google 's involvement here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the non-technical world at large is unable to understand the real issue from the CNN article, since it sort of seems like it is *Google* that is making the picture available to people.
Of course everyone here knows that Google is just providing a link to something that is already there, and that it is a cold, emotionless and apolitical machine deciding that this link is popular enough to be highly rated.
Without that background knowledge, which many people don't have and which the CNN article doesn't explain too well, any sort of opinion on this issue will be misguided.It goes further than that, since this has NOTHING to do with free speech, unlike what many comments here suggest.
The US right to free speech is about how the government cannot prevent your speech, and since Google isn't the government, free speech has no bearing on what Google does.
Furthermore, since e.g.
making child porn available is illegal in most places, including the US, it is just completely bogus that free speech means that you have a right to distribute any kind of information you want.
On top of that, even if Google was the government, it would not have an obligation to make this link available.
Free speech has nothing to do with this.Google can't take down links to images like this just due to public outcry, because then it would never stop with people trying to get Google to take all sorts of things down.
That is the essence of Google's involvement here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235454</id>
	<title>Re:This is disgusting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259235420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Racial slurs are not opinions. If it was a picture of her in a Dunce's hat, or with a stupid grinning expression and dribbling, that would be an example of considering her of low intelligence, or of diminished mental capacity. However, this is likening her to a primate, a widely known insult against black people.<br> <br>Freedom of speech has limits. You can't shout "fire" in a theatre, you can't threaten anyone with violence, you can't make racial slurs or insight racial hatred etc etc.<br> <br>You can hold onto your right of free speech until you start infringing on my rights; The right to be safe in my person, free of persecution, and the right to equality to name a few.<br> <br>By the way, I'm white. I'm just making a point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Racial slurs are not opinions .
If it was a picture of her in a Dunce 's hat , or with a stupid grinning expression and dribbling , that would be an example of considering her of low intelligence , or of diminished mental capacity .
However , this is likening her to a primate , a widely known insult against black people .
Freedom of speech has limits .
You ca n't shout " fire " in a theatre , you ca n't threaten anyone with violence , you ca n't make racial slurs or insight racial hatred etc etc .
You can hold onto your right of free speech until you start infringing on my rights ; The right to be safe in my person , free of persecution , and the right to equality to name a few .
By the way , I 'm white .
I 'm just making a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Racial slurs are not opinions.
If it was a picture of her in a Dunce's hat, or with a stupid grinning expression and dribbling, that would be an example of considering her of low intelligence, or of diminished mental capacity.
However, this is likening her to a primate, a widely known insult against black people.
Freedom of speech has limits.
You can't shout "fire" in a theatre, you can't threaten anyone with violence, you can't make racial slurs or insight racial hatred etc etc.
You can hold onto your right of free speech until you start infringing on my rights; The right to be safe in my person, free of persecution, and the right to equality to name a few.
By the way, I'm white.
I'm just making a point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235364</id>
	<title>Re:This is disgusting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259234460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing (and you should be proud) to let people say stuff you don't agree with.</p></div><p>And they can. Nobody took down the site, it's just not listed in an index anymore. Freedom of speech gives you the right to put up your soapbox on a street corner, but it doesn't give you the right to force your opinion down anyones throat by broadcasting it at primetime.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That includes racist bullshit too.  Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.</p></div><p>Well, if racist bullshit is published to the general audience, that's libel and can get you into jail, at least in my country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing ( and you should be proud ) to let people say stuff you do n't agree with.And they can .
Nobody took down the site , it 's just not listed in an index anymore .
Freedom of speech gives you the right to put up your soapbox on a street corner , but it does n't give you the right to force your opinion down anyones throat by broadcasting it at primetime.That includes racist bullshit too .
Even if it is directed at the world 's favorite US president 's wife.Well , if racist bullshit is published to the general audience , that 's libel and can get you into jail , at least in my country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing (and you should be proud) to let people say stuff you don't agree with.And they can.
Nobody took down the site, it's just not listed in an index anymore.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to put up your soapbox on a street corner, but it doesn't give you the right to force your opinion down anyones throat by broadcasting it at primetime.That includes racist bullshit too.
Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.Well, if racist bullshit is published to the general audience, that's libel and can get you into jail, at least in my country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236754</id>
	<title>Did Google acted likewise with George Bush?</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1259249400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember that I saw some pics resebling former President Bush to a monkey, even in the New Yorker Magazine!... Any actions then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that I saw some pics resebling former President Bush to a monkey , even in the New Yorker Magazine ! .. .
Any actions then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that I saw some pics resebling former President Bush to a monkey, even in the New Yorker Magazine!...
Any actions then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236614</id>
	<title>Why is this offensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259248140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this offensive? Because certain viewers attach a negative connotation to it? Give me a break. Ask my 6yo son what the image 'means' and he will just think it is funny. The only reason this is offensive is because the race baiters of the world in concert with the criminal liberal media continue to educate the uneducated that an image of a monkey is (more correctly was) racist - at one time. Get over it and quit propagating your own hate and blaming others for it.</p><p>Politics aside, I am against Google altering search results for most any reason. If it is a result and relevant, display it.</p><p>On the other side, if the site was using a clever google bomb to bait malware - then he!! yeah shut em down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this offensive ?
Because certain viewers attach a negative connotation to it ?
Give me a break .
Ask my 6yo son what the image 'means ' and he will just think it is funny .
The only reason this is offensive is because the race baiters of the world in concert with the criminal liberal media continue to educate the uneducated that an image of a monkey is ( more correctly was ) racist - at one time .
Get over it and quit propagating your own hate and blaming others for it.Politics aside , I am against Google altering search results for most any reason .
If it is a result and relevant , display it.On the other side , if the site was using a clever google bomb to bait malware - then he ! !
yeah shut em down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this offensive?
Because certain viewers attach a negative connotation to it?
Give me a break.
Ask my 6yo son what the image 'means' and he will just think it is funny.
The only reason this is offensive is because the race baiters of the world in concert with the criminal liberal media continue to educate the uneducated that an image of a monkey is (more correctly was) racist - at one time.
Get over it and quit propagating your own hate and blaming others for it.Politics aside, I am against Google altering search results for most any reason.
If it is a result and relevant, display it.On the other side, if the site was using a clever google bomb to bait malware - then he!!
yeah shut em down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235884</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259240040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A negro wrote, "You have an entire group of people who were brought to the country as slaves and even after slavery was abolished were terribly discriminated against (eg kept under control by lynching) within living memory. Even after reform you still have serious discrimination going on into the present day."
<p>
Slavery was about 150 years ago.  Slavery does not exist in the USA.
</p><p>
"serious discrimination" is the cry of African-American racists and apologists.
</p><p>
"serious discrimination" against African-Americans does not exist today.  African-Americans are failures because they reject Western values.
</p><p>
Contrast African-Americans to Japanese-Americans.  The American government imprisoned all Japanese-Americans in the mainland during World War II.  Their land and homes were confiscated.  At the end of the war, the Japanese-Americans left the internment camps and started from scratch -- from nothing -- and, within one generation, became part of the American middle class.
</p><p>
Let's stop this bullshit affirmative action for negroes.  Affirmative action is racist discrimination in favor of negroes at the expense of European-Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.
African-American failure -- and the high rate of violent crime in African-American neighborhoods -- is due to African-Americans' deliberately choosing to reject education and other Western values.
</p><p>
African-Americans' racist voting behavior is utterly racist.  These bullshit negroes claim that "serious discrimination" forces them to vote on the basis of skin color.
</p><p>
Listen.  If you are a Cambodian-American, look at the negro next door.  His kid will be given preferential treatment to enter Harvard University just because he is black, and your kid is not.  As a Cambodian-American, how do you feel about this racism by blacks against non-blacks?  If you are angry about this racist bullshit, please vote "racial pride" in the next election and vote against all African-American candidates.  Vote only for non-Black candidates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A negro wrote , " You have an entire group of people who were brought to the country as slaves and even after slavery was abolished were terribly discriminated against ( eg kept under control by lynching ) within living memory .
Even after reform you still have serious discrimination going on into the present day .
" Slavery was about 150 years ago .
Slavery does not exist in the USA .
" serious discrimination " is the cry of African-American racists and apologists .
" serious discrimination " against African-Americans does not exist today .
African-Americans are failures because they reject Western values .
Contrast African-Americans to Japanese-Americans .
The American government imprisoned all Japanese-Americans in the mainland during World War II .
Their land and homes were confiscated .
At the end of the war , the Japanese-Americans left the internment camps and started from scratch -- from nothing -- and , within one generation , became part of the American middle class .
Let 's stop this bullshit affirmative action for negroes .
Affirmative action is racist discrimination in favor of negroes at the expense of European-Americans , Japanese-Americans , etc .
African-American failure -- and the high rate of violent crime in African-American neighborhoods -- is due to African-Americans ' deliberately choosing to reject education and other Western values .
African-Americans ' racist voting behavior is utterly racist .
These bullshit negroes claim that " serious discrimination " forces them to vote on the basis of skin color .
Listen. If you are a Cambodian-American , look at the negro next door .
His kid will be given preferential treatment to enter Harvard University just because he is black , and your kid is not .
As a Cambodian-American , how do you feel about this racism by blacks against non-blacks ?
If you are angry about this racist bullshit , please vote " racial pride " in the next election and vote against all African-American candidates .
Vote only for non-Black candidates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A negro wrote, "You have an entire group of people who were brought to the country as slaves and even after slavery was abolished were terribly discriminated against (eg kept under control by lynching) within living memory.
Even after reform you still have serious discrimination going on into the present day.
"

Slavery was about 150 years ago.
Slavery does not exist in the USA.
"serious discrimination" is the cry of African-American racists and apologists.
"serious discrimination" against African-Americans does not exist today.
African-Americans are failures because they reject Western values.
Contrast African-Americans to Japanese-Americans.
The American government imprisoned all Japanese-Americans in the mainland during World War II.
Their land and homes were confiscated.
At the end of the war, the Japanese-Americans left the internment camps and started from scratch -- from nothing -- and, within one generation, became part of the American middle class.
Let's stop this bullshit affirmative action for negroes.
Affirmative action is racist discrimination in favor of negroes at the expense of European-Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.
African-American failure -- and the high rate of violent crime in African-American neighborhoods -- is due to African-Americans' deliberately choosing to reject education and other Western values.
African-Americans' racist voting behavior is utterly racist.
These bullshit negroes claim that "serious discrimination" forces them to vote on the basis of skin color.
Listen.  If you are a Cambodian-American, look at the negro next door.
His kid will be given preferential treatment to enter Harvard University just because he is black, and your kid is not.
As a Cambodian-American, how do you feel about this racism by blacks against non-blacks?
If you are angry about this racist bullshit, please vote "racial pride" in the next election and vote against all African-American candidates.
Vote only for non-Black candidates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236778</id>
	<title>Oh those double standards.</title>
	<author>deacon</author>
	<datestamp>1259249640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows you can only do tasteless jokes about a black woman or man when they are a conservative.</p><p>Remember Condoleezza Rice?</p><p><a href="http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&amp;sa=1&amp;q=condoleezza+rice+monkey&amp;btnG=Search+images" title="google.com">http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&amp;sa=1&amp;q=condoleezza+rice+monkey&amp;btnG=Search+images</a> [google.com]</p><p>Remember Michael Steele?</p><p><a href="http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;sa=1&amp;q=michael+steele+blackface&amp;btnG=Search+images" title="google.com">http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;sa=1&amp;q=michael+steele+blackface&amp;btnG=Search+images</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows you can only do tasteless jokes about a black woman or man when they are a conservative.Remember Condoleezza Rice ? http : //images.google.com/images ? gbv = 1&amp;sa = 1&amp;q = condoleezza + rice + monkey&amp;btnG = Search + images [ google.com ] Remember Michael Steele ? http : //images.google.com/images ? gbv = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;safe = off&amp;sa = 1&amp;q = michael + steele + blackface&amp;btnG = Search + images [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows you can only do tasteless jokes about a black woman or man when they are a conservative.Remember Condoleezza Rice?http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&amp;sa=1&amp;q=condoleezza+rice+monkey&amp;btnG=Search+images [google.com]Remember Michael Steele?http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;sa=1&amp;q=michael+steele+blackface&amp;btnG=Search+images [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236244</id>
	<title>Re:Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1259244840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right. The administration had probably nothing to do with censoring that picture.</p><p>BUT... If I am Barack Obama, I am picking up my phone, calling Google and asking them to put the picture back. In fact, wasn't he in China just last week <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8361471.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">telling students there</a> [bbc.co.uk] how back in the ol' US of A people can say all kinds of things about him, and how he loves freedom of speech?</p><p>And now, an offensive picture of his wife mysteriously disappears from the #1 web search engine. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? Think of all the propaganda that Chinese and other governments can orchestrate from this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right .
The administration had probably nothing to do with censoring that picture.BUT... If I am Barack Obama , I am picking up my phone , calling Google and asking them to put the picture back .
In fact , was n't he in China just last week telling students there [ bbc.co.uk ] how back in the ol ' US of A people can say all kinds of things about him , and how he loves freedom of speech ? And now , an offensive picture of his wife mysteriously disappears from the # 1 web search engine .
What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world ?
Think of all the propaganda that Chinese and other governments can orchestrate from this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right.
The administration had probably nothing to do with censoring that picture.BUT... If I am Barack Obama, I am picking up my phone, calling Google and asking them to put the picture back.
In fact, wasn't he in China just last week telling students there [bbc.co.uk] how back in the ol' US of A people can say all kinds of things about him, and how he loves freedom of speech?And now, an offensive picture of his wife mysteriously disappears from the #1 web search engine.
What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world?
Think of all the propaganda that Chinese and other governments can orchestrate from this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235388</id>
	<title>Re:This is disgusting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259234700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont know about world favourite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) the US continent doesnt cover the whole planet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont know about world favourite ; ) the US continent doesnt cover the whole planet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont know about world favourite ;) the US continent doesnt cover the whole planet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237474</id>
	<title>Why is this google's fault</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1259254740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can post images of child pornography on Google images, and it would not be their fault.<br>Especially if the title is like Obama and the monkey....how are they supposed to know to filter that<br>image out as being a bad image</p><p>I heard they use a filter on names, tags, and also skin tones as well as size to check for child porn...<br>how can they know that changing the image to a money but naming the image Obama is a no,no.</p><p>Seriously, this is not Google's fault, it should be the fault of the person who put it there.<br>Even then, what happened to free speech?<br>If someone painted a mustache over my lips and drew little horns, and posted my image on the web...<br>would they be doing something illegal, but because of who the person is, they should be off limits to criticism<br>or jokes???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can post images of child pornography on Google images , and it would not be their fault.Especially if the title is like Obama and the monkey....how are they supposed to know to filter thatimage out as being a bad imageI heard they use a filter on names , tags , and also skin tones as well as size to check for child porn...how can they know that changing the image to a money but naming the image Obama is a no,no.Seriously , this is not Google 's fault , it should be the fault of the person who put it there.Even then , what happened to free speech ? If someone painted a mustache over my lips and drew little horns , and posted my image on the web...would they be doing something illegal , but because of who the person is , they should be off limits to criticismor jokes ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can post images of child pornography on Google images, and it would not be their fault.Especially if the title is like Obama and the monkey....how are they supposed to know to filter thatimage out as being a bad imageI heard they use a filter on names, tags, and also skin tones as well as size to check for child porn...how can they know that changing the image to a money but naming the image Obama is a no,no.Seriously, this is not Google's fault, it should be the fault of the person who put it there.Even then, what happened to free speech?If someone painted a mustache over my lips and drew little horns, and posted my image on the web...would they be doing something illegal, but because of who the person is, they should be off limits to criticismor jokes??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235812</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259239320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they are facing 'serious discrimination' due to the thug-loving image often presented in the media. I'm sure if they all acted like Will Smith then wouldn't get such bad fame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they are facing 'serious discrimination ' due to the thug-loving image often presented in the media .
I 'm sure if they all acted like Will Smith then would n't get such bad fame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they are facing 'serious discrimination' due to the thug-loving image often presented in the media.
I'm sure if they all acted like Will Smith then wouldn't get such bad fame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235306</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1259233680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, right? It's really awful when just because there has been a history of comparing black people to monkeys in the US as a way of denying their intelligence and humanity that some oversensitive people leap to the absurd conclusion that a picture of a black person being portrayed as a monkey is somehow race-baiting.</p><p>I'm sure it was probably drawn because the artist felt that monkeys are cute, Michelle Obama is cute, and a Michelle Obama monkey is probably even cuter, right? Because it's just stupid to imagine that there would be any racial component to it. This is the 21st century! We don't do that stuff any more!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , right ?
It 's really awful when just because there has been a history of comparing black people to monkeys in the US as a way of denying their intelligence and humanity that some oversensitive people leap to the absurd conclusion that a picture of a black person being portrayed as a monkey is somehow race-baiting.I 'm sure it was probably drawn because the artist felt that monkeys are cute , Michelle Obama is cute , and a Michelle Obama monkey is probably even cuter , right ?
Because it 's just stupid to imagine that there would be any racial component to it .
This is the 21st century !
We do n't do that stuff any more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, right?
It's really awful when just because there has been a history of comparing black people to monkeys in the US as a way of denying their intelligence and humanity that some oversensitive people leap to the absurd conclusion that a picture of a black person being portrayed as a monkey is somehow race-baiting.I'm sure it was probably drawn because the artist felt that monkeys are cute, Michelle Obama is cute, and a Michelle Obama monkey is probably even cuter, right?
Because it's just stupid to imagine that there would be any racial component to it.
This is the 21st century!
We don't do that stuff any more!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236878</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259250300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, the problem is that right-wingers are convinced that god created white people and black people evolved from apes even though evolution is a liberal lie and BWAAAH I can't keep up with this right-wing bullshit how do they keep all this shit straight my head is still ringing from the dissonance of it all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , the problem is that right-wingers are convinced that god created white people and black people evolved from apes even though evolution is a liberal lie and BWAAAH I ca n't keep up with this right-wing bullshit how do they keep all this shit straight my head is still ringing from the dissonance of it all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, the problem is that right-wingers are convinced that god created white people and black people evolved from apes even though evolution is a liberal lie and BWAAAH I can't keep up with this right-wing bullshit how do they keep all this shit straight my head is still ringing from the dissonance of it all</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235530</id>
	<title>Today its a monkey</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259236200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would a CIA linked 'google' do with a Watergate, Iran contra ect. ?<br>
Show some more Iraqi museum images?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would a CIA linked 'google ' do with a Watergate , Iran contra ect .
? Show some more Iraqi museum images ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would a CIA linked 'google' do with a Watergate, Iran contra ect.
?
Show some more Iraqi museum images?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235632</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259237220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up until now, I had never regarded a monkey as black, white, green, plad, or any other color, in such a context.  Thank you for pointing out obvious racisim of monkies.  Thank heavens they didn't compare her to [random animal] that would indicate [random slur].</p><p>I worry for this world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up until now , I had never regarded a monkey as black , white , green , plad , or any other color , in such a context .
Thank you for pointing out obvious racisim of monkies .
Thank heavens they did n't compare her to [ random animal ] that would indicate [ random slur ] .I worry for this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up until now, I had never regarded a monkey as black, white, green, plad, or any other color, in such a context.
Thank you for pointing out obvious racisim of monkies.
Thank heavens they didn't compare her to [random animal] that would indicate [random slur].I worry for this world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30240580</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1259237940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>95\% of black Americans always vote for the Democrat. 19 out of 20 black Americans voted for John Kerry. That's not a racial issue directly, it's more of a racial issue indirectly, because Dems like to make government programs that help black people. In that way, it is really a simple matter of voting for the policies out of self interest.</p><p>Moreover, affinity groups always gravitate toward their own representatives: Catholics liked Kennedy; Jews like Liberman. Considering this, it's surprising that more blacks didn't vote for Obama; but also, it's hard to improve on a base of 95\%.</p><p>Finally, despite you being wrong about all your facts, I think you are right about your conclusion: you can vote for or against candidates any way you want, even for racial reasons. If your conscience says that black people are in some way bad, then you should not vote for black people. The grand effort of a liberal society should be to convince racists, bigots, haters, and the ignorant to change their ways; and if that's not possible, to convince their children to be different, and wait for the bigots to die. So as much as I hate to do it, I give you my personal blessing to continue voting your conscience, even as I vainly encourage you to stop being a bigot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % of black Americans always vote for the Democrat .
19 out of 20 black Americans voted for John Kerry .
That 's not a racial issue directly , it 's more of a racial issue indirectly , because Dems like to make government programs that help black people .
In that way , it is really a simple matter of voting for the policies out of self interest.Moreover , affinity groups always gravitate toward their own representatives : Catholics liked Kennedy ; Jews like Liberman .
Considering this , it 's surprising that more blacks did n't vote for Obama ; but also , it 's hard to improve on a base of 95 \ % .Finally , despite you being wrong about all your facts , I think you are right about your conclusion : you can vote for or against candidates any way you want , even for racial reasons .
If your conscience says that black people are in some way bad , then you should not vote for black people .
The grand effort of a liberal society should be to convince racists , bigots , haters , and the ignorant to change their ways ; and if that 's not possible , to convince their children to be different , and wait for the bigots to die .
So as much as I hate to do it , I give you my personal blessing to continue voting your conscience , even as I vainly encourage you to stop being a bigot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% of black Americans always vote for the Democrat.
19 out of 20 black Americans voted for John Kerry.
That's not a racial issue directly, it's more of a racial issue indirectly, because Dems like to make government programs that help black people.
In that way, it is really a simple matter of voting for the policies out of self interest.Moreover, affinity groups always gravitate toward their own representatives: Catholics liked Kennedy; Jews like Liberman.
Considering this, it's surprising that more blacks didn't vote for Obama; but also, it's hard to improve on a base of 95\%.Finally, despite you being wrong about all your facts, I think you are right about your conclusion: you can vote for or against candidates any way you want, even for racial reasons.
If your conscience says that black people are in some way bad, then you should not vote for black people.
The grand effort of a liberal society should be to convince racists, bigots, haters, and the ignorant to change their ways; and if that's not possible, to convince their children to be different, and wait for the bigots to die.
So as much as I hate to do it, I give you my personal blessing to continue voting your conscience, even as I vainly encourage you to stop being a bigot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235050</id>
	<title>Re:Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259230980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They never did that for the "Bush chimp" pictures.</p></div><p>That's political satire - not racism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They never did that for the " Bush chimp " pictures.That 's political satire - not racism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They never did that for the "Bush chimp" pictures.That's political satire - not racism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948</id>
	<title>Good Job guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259229720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the moment it suggests searching for "Michelle Obama monkey" when you search for "Michelle Obama"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment it suggests searching for " Michelle Obama monkey " when you search for " Michelle Obama "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment it suggests searching for "Michelle Obama monkey" when you search for "Michelle Obama"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236850</id>
	<title>Google Did NOT Apologize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259250120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This headline has been running EVERYWHERE but its not true. Google didn't apologize. Nowhere do you see ANYONE from Google saying "Gee, sorry we put that image up." What they SAID was "Look guys, we're organizing the world's information. Some of that information is racist and dumb, and probably should be taken off the internet. But until it is, we're going to index it." That's not an apology, that's a very smart stance in this hyper-politicized age. This is just the media trying to make Google seem week, or that it is somehow cowed to the Obama Administration. Now that MSFT is in bed with Murdoch (and owns 18\% of MSNBC) I expect to see plenty of Google smear campaigns soon. Fox runs stories about Google's socialist cloud computer and "free" software, while MSNBC cries anti-trust and paints Google as Big Brother. In the end, Google will survive if they continue to stay on track with thier message and not bow to external pressures (China notwithstanding, though I suspect Google has a trick up its sleeve there...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This headline has been running EVERYWHERE but its not true .
Google did n't apologize .
Nowhere do you see ANYONE from Google saying " Gee , sorry we put that image up .
" What they SAID was " Look guys , we 're organizing the world 's information .
Some of that information is racist and dumb , and probably should be taken off the internet .
But until it is , we 're going to index it .
" That 's not an apology , that 's a very smart stance in this hyper-politicized age .
This is just the media trying to make Google seem week , or that it is somehow cowed to the Obama Administration .
Now that MSFT is in bed with Murdoch ( and owns 18 \ % of MSNBC ) I expect to see plenty of Google smear campaigns soon .
Fox runs stories about Google 's socialist cloud computer and " free " software , while MSNBC cries anti-trust and paints Google as Big Brother .
In the end , Google will survive if they continue to stay on track with thier message and not bow to external pressures ( China notwithstanding , though I suspect Google has a trick up its sleeve there... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This headline has been running EVERYWHERE but its not true.
Google didn't apologize.
Nowhere do you see ANYONE from Google saying "Gee, sorry we put that image up.
" What they SAID was "Look guys, we're organizing the world's information.
Some of that information is racist and dumb, and probably should be taken off the internet.
But until it is, we're going to index it.
" That's not an apology, that's a very smart stance in this hyper-politicized age.
This is just the media trying to make Google seem week, or that it is somehow cowed to the Obama Administration.
Now that MSFT is in bed with Murdoch (and owns 18\% of MSNBC) I expect to see plenty of Google smear campaigns soon.
Fox runs stories about Google's socialist cloud computer and "free" software, while MSNBC cries anti-trust and paints Google as Big Brother.
In the end, Google will survive if they continue to stay on track with thier message and not bow to external pressures (China notwithstanding, though I suspect Google has a trick up its sleeve there...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235498</id>
	<title>Re:I side with Google</title>
	<author>whyloginwhysubscribe</author>
	<datestamp>1259235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They wouldn't do it for the word "Jew" so why would they do it for one person?
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jew" title="google.co.uk">http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jew</a> [google.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would n't do it for the word " Jew " so why would they do it for one person ?
http : //www.google.co.uk/search ? q = Jew [ google.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They wouldn't do it for the word "Jew" so why would they do it for one person?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jew [google.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236304</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1259245380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are joking, right?  There were many complaints and objections to the various monkeyfied images of George W. Bush.  I remember hearing one talk radio host saying that he wanted to charge the people responsible with treason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are joking , right ?
There were many complaints and objections to the various monkeyfied images of George W. Bush. I remember hearing one talk radio host saying that he wanted to charge the people responsible with treason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are joking, right?
There were many complaints and objections to the various monkeyfied images of George W. Bush.  I remember hearing one talk radio host saying that he wanted to charge the people responsible with treason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235162</id>
	<title>Re:Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're ridiculous.</p><p>The administration wouldn't have to lift a finger to get Google to remove this - market pressures would. Someone finds a race-baiting image of the First Lady is a top result on Google and sends word to everyone in their address book about it, and those people spread it, and so on. At some point you'd have tons of people contacting Google to demand that it be remedied, and Google would do it rather than suffer a pretty serious PR black eye.</p><p>Why would the Obama administration bother swinging at a pitch in the dirt like this? People have been shown at protests with signs that insult the man's *children* by calling them all kinds of racist names, and he doesn't bother responding to it, but you think that a stupid caricature of his wife is somehow going to get him to say "Hey, I think I'll take an action that, if found out, would completely ruin my credibility and won't have any impact because the image will still be out there. That's a winning move!"</p><p>It looks like you're a paranoid kook who doesn't have any clue how the real world actually works. The fact that some other mong modded you "insightful" should be frightening to people who actually have a functioning brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're ridiculous.The administration would n't have to lift a finger to get Google to remove this - market pressures would .
Someone finds a race-baiting image of the First Lady is a top result on Google and sends word to everyone in their address book about it , and those people spread it , and so on .
At some point you 'd have tons of people contacting Google to demand that it be remedied , and Google would do it rather than suffer a pretty serious PR black eye.Why would the Obama administration bother swinging at a pitch in the dirt like this ?
People have been shown at protests with signs that insult the man 's * children * by calling them all kinds of racist names , and he does n't bother responding to it , but you think that a stupid caricature of his wife is somehow going to get him to say " Hey , I think I 'll take an action that , if found out , would completely ruin my credibility and wo n't have any impact because the image will still be out there .
That 's a winning move !
" It looks like you 're a paranoid kook who does n't have any clue how the real world actually works .
The fact that some other mong modded you " insightful " should be frightening to people who actually have a functioning brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're ridiculous.The administration wouldn't have to lift a finger to get Google to remove this - market pressures would.
Someone finds a race-baiting image of the First Lady is a top result on Google and sends word to everyone in their address book about it, and those people spread it, and so on.
At some point you'd have tons of people contacting Google to demand that it be remedied, and Google would do it rather than suffer a pretty serious PR black eye.Why would the Obama administration bother swinging at a pitch in the dirt like this?
People have been shown at protests with signs that insult the man's *children* by calling them all kinds of racist names, and he doesn't bother responding to it, but you think that a stupid caricature of his wife is somehow going to get him to say "Hey, I think I'll take an action that, if found out, would completely ruin my credibility and won't have any impact because the image will still be out there.
That's a winning move!
"It looks like you're a paranoid kook who doesn't have any clue how the real world actually works.
The fact that some other mong modded you "insightful" should be frightening to people who actually have a functioning brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235598</id>
	<title>Re:why is anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1259236860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only "morals" are to maximize shareholder profits.<br>
If that means caving in to public outcry or government pressure, they will do that.</p></div><p>That is correct, but the issue is, are they caving to short-term benefits (keeping people quiet about that image) versus long-term harm (setting precedents of Google filtering results when people are not happy).<br> <br>

There is no reason to be angry with Google's results any more than there is a reason to be angry at Kellogg's if the alphabet cereal in your bowl spelled "idiot". But if if you repeatedly demonstrate will to handcraft the results, the technical argument will no longer matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only " morals " are to maximize shareholder profits .
If that means caving in to public outcry or government pressure , they will do that.That is correct , but the issue is , are they caving to short-term benefits ( keeping people quiet about that image ) versus long-term harm ( setting precedents of Google filtering results when people are not happy ) .
There is no reason to be angry with Google 's results any more than there is a reason to be angry at Kellogg 's if the alphabet cereal in your bowl spelled " idiot " .
But if if you repeatedly demonstrate will to handcraft the results , the technical argument will no longer matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only "morals" are to maximize shareholder profits.
If that means caving in to public outcry or government pressure, they will do that.That is correct, but the issue is, are they caving to short-term benefits (keeping people quiet about that image) versus long-term harm (setting precedents of Google filtering results when people are not happy).
There is no reason to be angry with Google's results any more than there is a reason to be angry at Kellogg's if the alphabet cereal in your bowl spelled "idiot".
But if if you repeatedly demonstrate will to handcraft the results, the technical argument will no longer matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237514</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>skunkiller3</author>
	<datestamp>1259255100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because you haven't heard it said before doesn't mean it's not an incredibly offensive racial slur.  When Darwin's theory of evolution became fairly widely known, some people decided it was OK to subjugate black people.  After all, they looked more like monkeys than the white folk, so they must be less human, right?  Even if "monkey" isn't used where you hear it, it still stands for a hell of a lot of oppression and subjugation.
<br>
<br>
It's unfortunate, for the joke's sake, that comparing a black person to a monkey doesn't imply the same things as it does for a white person.  But that's the way it is.  Closing your ears and pretending that dehumanization never happened isn't going to make the joke funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you have n't heard it said before does n't mean it 's not an incredibly offensive racial slur .
When Darwin 's theory of evolution became fairly widely known , some people decided it was OK to subjugate black people .
After all , they looked more like monkeys than the white folk , so they must be less human , right ?
Even if " monkey " is n't used where you hear it , it still stands for a hell of a lot of oppression and subjugation .
It 's unfortunate , for the joke 's sake , that comparing a black person to a monkey does n't imply the same things as it does for a white person .
But that 's the way it is .
Closing your ears and pretending that dehumanization never happened is n't going to make the joke funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you haven't heard it said before doesn't mean it's not an incredibly offensive racial slur.
When Darwin's theory of evolution became fairly widely known, some people decided it was OK to subjugate black people.
After all, they looked more like monkeys than the white folk, so they must be less human, right?
Even if "monkey" isn't used where you hear it, it still stands for a hell of a lot of oppression and subjugation.
It's unfortunate, for the joke's sake, that comparing a black person to a monkey doesn't imply the same things as it does for a white person.
But that's the way it is.
Closing your ears and pretending that dehumanization never happened isn't going to make the joke funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235932</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259240700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not a ridiculous point and your comparison is invalid.</p><p>The monkey comparison has non-racial connotations. As the OP points out, it is used to describe people of all races, including George Bush. The N-word, on the other hand, does not have a non-racial connotation.</p><p>If you're confused at someone calling you the N-word, it is only because the N-word is traditionally used against black people. The monkey comparison, as I just stated, can be used against anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not a ridiculous point and your comparison is invalid.The monkey comparison has non-racial connotations .
As the OP points out , it is used to describe people of all races , including George Bush .
The N-word , on the other hand , does not have a non-racial connotation.If you 're confused at someone calling you the N-word , it is only because the N-word is traditionally used against black people .
The monkey comparison , as I just stated , can be used against anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not a ridiculous point and your comparison is invalid.The monkey comparison has non-racial connotations.
As the OP points out, it is used to describe people of all races, including George Bush.
The N-word, on the other hand, does not have a non-racial connotation.If you're confused at someone calling you the N-word, it is only because the N-word is traditionally used against black people.
The monkey comparison, as I just stated, can be used against anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235852</id>
	<title>What's the big deal?!</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1259239740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought America was <b>*SUPPOSED*</b> to be a free country?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought America was * SUPPOSED * to be a free country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought America was *SUPPOSED* to be a free country?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235330</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1259233980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because comparing a president's intellect to that of a monkey is exactly the same as a racist comparison of the president's wife to the physical appearance of a monkey. I know it might be nice to live in a little vacuum world in which nothing has any context, but certain things in our society are very loaded, even if when broken down, they should not be.</p><p>I think the truly sad thing here is how the first lady gets something like this wiped from the internet (more or less) while every other person who isn't rich or famous or powerful has to simply accept Google indexing (even prominently) very slanderous, libelous, offensive, repulsive, wrong, insulting things by other people (for example, see how Google is perhaps the only search engine to not only avoid hampering the Rip Off Report's libelous and unchecked content that the owner uses as a method of extortion against businesses and individuals under the guise of a consumer activist service, but actually prominently ranks and displays content) -- if you're not the president's wife, it's just tough shit for you. If you *are*, then boy howdy, we'll jump right on that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because comparing a president 's intellect to that of a monkey is exactly the same as a racist comparison of the president 's wife to the physical appearance of a monkey .
I know it might be nice to live in a little vacuum world in which nothing has any context , but certain things in our society are very loaded , even if when broken down , they should not be.I think the truly sad thing here is how the first lady gets something like this wiped from the internet ( more or less ) while every other person who is n't rich or famous or powerful has to simply accept Google indexing ( even prominently ) very slanderous , libelous , offensive , repulsive , wrong , insulting things by other people ( for example , see how Google is perhaps the only search engine to not only avoid hampering the Rip Off Report 's libelous and unchecked content that the owner uses as a method of extortion against businesses and individuals under the guise of a consumer activist service , but actually prominently ranks and displays content ) -- if you 're not the president 's wife , it 's just tough shit for you .
If you * are * , then boy howdy , we 'll jump right on that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because comparing a president's intellect to that of a monkey is exactly the same as a racist comparison of the president's wife to the physical appearance of a monkey.
I know it might be nice to live in a little vacuum world in which nothing has any context, but certain things in our society are very loaded, even if when broken down, they should not be.I think the truly sad thing here is how the first lady gets something like this wiped from the internet (more or less) while every other person who isn't rich or famous or powerful has to simply accept Google indexing (even prominently) very slanderous, libelous, offensive, repulsive, wrong, insulting things by other people (for example, see how Google is perhaps the only search engine to not only avoid hampering the Rip Off Report's libelous and unchecked content that the owner uses as a method of extortion against businesses and individuals under the guise of a consumer activist service, but actually prominently ranks and displays content) -- if you're not the president's wife, it's just tough shit for you.
If you *are*, then boy howdy, we'll jump right on that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236134</id>
	<title>Home indexing</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1259243580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Today, we have home theater instead of cinema.  Maybe someday when home computing power increases enough we'll have home-based web indexing, and we won't have to put up with censorship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , we have home theater instead of cinema .
Maybe someday when home computing power increases enough we 'll have home-based web indexing , and we wo n't have to put up with censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, we have home theater instead of cinema.
Maybe someday when home computing power increases enough we'll have home-based web indexing, and we won't have to put up with censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because he's an idiot who behaves like a monkey.  It wasn't racist, which is very different.  If you think that Michelle Obama is an idiot, fine, but find another way to express that can't be misinterpreted along racial grounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because he 's an idiot who behaves like a monkey .
It was n't racist , which is very different .
If you think that Michelle Obama is an idiot , fine , but find another way to express that ca n't be misinterpreted along racial grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because he's an idiot who behaves like a monkey.
It wasn't racist, which is very different.
If you think that Michelle Obama is an idiot, fine, but find another way to express that can't be misinterpreted along racial grounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237146</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>gtbritishskull</author>
	<datestamp>1259252340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.</p></div><p>Bullshit!  Look up Barack Obama on google images.  You will be hard pressed to find an image of him that is not a monkey.  There is no uproar or censoring about that.  The issue here is that the first lady is being attacked.  Look up Laura Bush and tell me how many photoshopped images you see.  You just wanted a reason to bitch about black people and cry "reverse-racism" without actually looking up the facts related to this story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.Bullshit !
Look up Barack Obama on google images .
You will be hard pressed to find an image of him that is not a monkey .
There is no uproar or censoring about that .
The issue here is that the first lady is being attacked .
Look up Laura Bush and tell me how many photoshopped images you see .
You just wanted a reason to bitch about black people and cry " reverse-racism " without actually looking up the facts related to this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.Bullshit!
Look up Barack Obama on google images.
You will be hard pressed to find an image of him that is not a monkey.
There is no uproar or censoring about that.
The issue here is that the first lady is being attacked.
Look up Laura Bush and tell me how many photoshopped images you see.
You just wanted a reason to bitch about black people and cry "reverse-racism" without actually looking up the facts related to this story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236158</id>
	<title>Re:I side with Google</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1259244000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, while you're at it why don't you start a protest to get them to take down all the Condoleezza Rice parody photos floating around on the internet.  I'd ask you to mount a protest to clear up the Bush monkey pics, but it is apparent that any monkey-like depiction of an african american must be racially motivated, while any monkey-like depiction of a white person must be purely a political commentary.  Or is it only a racial attack if the african american is a registered Democrat?</p><p>I'm sorry - the political re-education must not have taken correctly.  Let me know what the rules are and I'll be sure to regulate my thoughts accordingly.</p><p>I think we do agree on one thing - these kinds of photos reflect more on the people making them than the people they depict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , while you 're at it why do n't you start a protest to get them to take down all the Condoleezza Rice parody photos floating around on the internet .
I 'd ask you to mount a protest to clear up the Bush monkey pics , but it is apparent that any monkey-like depiction of an african american must be racially motivated , while any monkey-like depiction of a white person must be purely a political commentary .
Or is it only a racial attack if the african american is a registered Democrat ? I 'm sorry - the political re-education must not have taken correctly .
Let me know what the rules are and I 'll be sure to regulate my thoughts accordingly.I think we do agree on one thing - these kinds of photos reflect more on the people making them than the people they depict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, while you're at it why don't you start a protest to get them to take down all the Condoleezza Rice parody photos floating around on the internet.
I'd ask you to mount a protest to clear up the Bush monkey pics, but it is apparent that any monkey-like depiction of an african american must be racially motivated, while any monkey-like depiction of a white person must be purely a political commentary.
Or is it only a racial attack if the african american is a registered Democrat?I'm sorry - the political re-education must not have taken correctly.
Let me know what the rules are and I'll be sure to regulate my thoughts accordingly.I think we do agree on one thing - these kinds of photos reflect more on the people making them than the people they depict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238216</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1259260560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>find another way to express that can't be misinterpreted along racial grounds</p></div><p>No. What you&rsquo;re advocating is merely another form of slavery.</p><p>I won&rsquo;t be shackled by those who try to force political correctness on everyone. I&rsquo;ll say what I want, how I want, when I want.</p><p>That said, I think the picture is in equally poor taste to the picture depicting George W. as a monkey.</p><p><em>That</em> said, it <em>does</em> feel a little bit fulfilling to have both of them receive similar treatment, and revealing to see the dissimilar responses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>find another way to express that ca n't be misinterpreted along racial groundsNo .
What you    re advocating is merely another form of slavery.I won    t be shackled by those who try to force political correctness on everyone .
I    ll say what I want , how I want , when I want.That said , I think the picture is in equally poor taste to the picture depicting George W. as a monkey.That said , it does feel a little bit fulfilling to have both of them receive similar treatment , and revealing to see the dissimilar responses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>find another way to express that can't be misinterpreted along racial groundsNo.
What you’re advocating is merely another form of slavery.I won’t be shackled by those who try to force political correctness on everyone.
I’ll say what I want, how I want, when I want.That said, I think the picture is in equally poor taste to the picture depicting George W. as a monkey.That said, it does feel a little bit fulfilling to have both of them receive similar treatment, and revealing to see the dissimilar responses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235444</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259235300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ugh.  I find this really disturbing.
<p>
Search engine's shouldn't be responsible for the information they turn up.  The people who should be ashamed of themselves are the people posting the images, not Google.  It sets a dangerous precedent for censorship, and gives credibility to criticisms of media bias.</p><p>
I'm personally of the opinion that showing M. Obama as a monkey is racially motivated,  but I'm willing to grant that it's not black and white (ha ha).  Even if it were...  Even if it was a picture of M. Obama being strung up in monkey-effigy by a bunch of klu-klux-klanner's, I don't think censoring the picture is a good idea.
</p><p>
Beyond just violating the principle of free speech, and setting uncomfortable precedences, I think this kind of behaviour is harmful for society as a whole.  Let's assume, for the purpose of discussion that these images are racially motivated.  Cutting these images out of google searches makes it more difficult, for example, for an individual to fairly research and document the levels of racially charged propaganda out there.  Also, the best way to give a movement a sense of solidarity is to persecute or censor them.  It's far better to let the racists expose themselves, and then subject them to ridicule, than it is to censor them.   Superman defeating the Klu Klux Klan is a good example of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh .
I find this really disturbing .
Search engine 's should n't be responsible for the information they turn up .
The people who should be ashamed of themselves are the people posting the images , not Google .
It sets a dangerous precedent for censorship , and gives credibility to criticisms of media bias .
I 'm personally of the opinion that showing M. Obama as a monkey is racially motivated , but I 'm willing to grant that it 's not black and white ( ha ha ) .
Even if it were... Even if it was a picture of M. Obama being strung up in monkey-effigy by a bunch of klu-klux-klanner 's , I do n't think censoring the picture is a good idea .
Beyond just violating the principle of free speech , and setting uncomfortable precedences , I think this kind of behaviour is harmful for society as a whole .
Let 's assume , for the purpose of discussion that these images are racially motivated .
Cutting these images out of google searches makes it more difficult , for example , for an individual to fairly research and document the levels of racially charged propaganda out there .
Also , the best way to give a movement a sense of solidarity is to persecute or censor them .
It 's far better to let the racists expose themselves , and then subject them to ridicule , than it is to censor them .
Superman defeating the Klu Klux Klan is a good example of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh.
I find this really disturbing.
Search engine's shouldn't be responsible for the information they turn up.
The people who should be ashamed of themselves are the people posting the images, not Google.
It sets a dangerous precedent for censorship, and gives credibility to criticisms of media bias.
I'm personally of the opinion that showing M. Obama as a monkey is racially motivated,  but I'm willing to grant that it's not black and white (ha ha).
Even if it were...  Even if it was a picture of M. Obama being strung up in monkey-effigy by a bunch of klu-klux-klanner's, I don't think censoring the picture is a good idea.
Beyond just violating the principle of free speech, and setting uncomfortable precedences, I think this kind of behaviour is harmful for society as a whole.
Let's assume, for the purpose of discussion that these images are racially motivated.
Cutting these images out of google searches makes it more difficult, for example, for an individual to fairly research and document the levels of racially charged propaganda out there.
Also, the best way to give a movement a sense of solidarity is to persecute or censor them.
It's far better to let the racists expose themselves, and then subject them to ridicule, than it is to censor them.
Superman defeating the Klu Klux Klan is a good example of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235214</id>
	<title>Streisand effect?</title>
	<author>severn2j</author>
	<datestamp>1259232720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the level of searches for Michelle Obama has increased since this story was released?  Also, how many people have seen the image now, that wouldnt have before?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the level of searches for Michelle Obama has increased since this story was released ?
Also , how many people have seen the image now , that wouldnt have before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the level of searches for Michelle Obama has increased since this story was released?
Also, how many people have seen the image now, that wouldnt have before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235704</id>
	<title>In two words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Streisand effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Streisand effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Streisand effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30252160</id>
	<title>furry standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I do a GIS for "Laura Bush" on the very first page is a photoshopped picture of her naked.</p></div><p>My groin thanks you for <a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/464187569\_bf147142c7\_o.jpg" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">the suggestion</a> [flickr.com], mister!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I do a GIS for " Laura Bush " on the very first page is a photoshopped picture of her naked.My groin thanks you for the suggestion [ flickr.com ] , mister !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I do a GIS for "Laura Bush" on the very first page is a photoshopped picture of her naked.My groin thanks you for the suggestion [flickr.com], mister!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235224</id>
	<title>Or it could be the logical conclusion.</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1259232840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of people were offended that it was the top picture that came up when you looked up her name, and submitted it with Google's "Report Offensive Image" button on the bottom of every Google image search page.
<br>
<br>
It still comes up if you Google her name and monkey, but that narrows the result to only people wanting to find pictures of her photoshopped to look like one...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people were offended that it was the top picture that came up when you looked up her name , and submitted it with Google 's " Report Offensive Image " button on the bottom of every Google image search page .
It still comes up if you Google her name and monkey , but that narrows the result to only people wanting to find pictures of her photoshopped to look like one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people were offended that it was the top picture that came up when you looked up her name, and submitted it with Google's "Report Offensive Image" button on the bottom of every Google image search page.
It still comes up if you Google her name and monkey, but that narrows the result to only people wanting to find pictures of her photoshopped to look like one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237294</id>
	<title>Re:This is disgusting</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259253300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you can't make racial slurs or insight racial hatred</p></div><p>Sure you can in the US. It's quite legal there. You'll probably (depending on your visibility and choice of target) be ostracized as a racist freak, but the law won't crack down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you ca n't make racial slurs or insight racial hatredSure you can in the US .
It 's quite legal there .
You 'll probably ( depending on your visibility and choice of target ) be ostracized as a racist freak , but the law wo n't crack down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can't make racial slurs or insight racial hatredSure you can in the US.
It's quite legal there.
You'll probably (depending on your visibility and choice of target) be ostracized as a racist freak, but the law won't crack down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235546</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1259236380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, what do monkeys have to do with race? Is it because she's black and therefore anything said against her must be viewed through the lens of racism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what do monkeys have to do with race ?
Is it because she 's black and therefore anything said against her must be viewed through the lens of racism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what do monkeys have to do with race?
Is it because she's black and therefore anything said against her must be viewed through the lens of racism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237658</id>
	<title>Is rasism Legal ???</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1259256420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is just too sloppy with thier algorithms. But<br>the much much bigger problem is the existence of all the<br>rasist sites.<br>I'm no legal expert. But is rasism \_LEGAL\_ in the US??!<br>(assuming some of the sites are from US or made by white americans)<br>To solve this problem, you americans, must create some proper laws ffs.<br>I assume you have laws against other illegal contents. I mean in those<br>instances you've managed to lessen Free Speech within reason.</p><p>I'm confused.</p><p>Sue google for illegal algorithms? I'm serious. Try doing something<br>to fix this!</p><p>Make a law that say: black-human image + monkey image + rasism context = illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is just too sloppy with thier algorithms .
Butthe much much bigger problem is the existence of all therasist sites.I 'm no legal expert .
But is rasism \ _LEGAL \ _ in the US ? ? !
( assuming some of the sites are from US or made by white americans ) To solve this problem , you americans , must create some proper laws ffs.I assume you have laws against other illegal contents .
I mean in thoseinstances you 've managed to lessen Free Speech within reason.I 'm confused.Sue google for illegal algorithms ?
I 'm serious .
Try doing somethingto fix this ! Make a law that say : black-human image + monkey image + rasism context = illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is just too sloppy with thier algorithms.
Butthe much much bigger problem is the existence of all therasist sites.I'm no legal expert.
But is rasism \_LEGAL\_ in the US??!
(assuming some of the sites are from US or made by white americans)To solve this problem, you americans, must create some proper laws ffs.I assume you have laws against other illegal contents.
I mean in thoseinstances you've managed to lessen Free Speech within reason.I'm confused.Sue google for illegal algorithms?
I'm serious.
Try doing somethingto fix this!Make a law that say: black-human image + monkey image + rasism context = illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237398</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1259254020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>African Americans have voted overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential candidates in the last few decades (usually 90\% or more) regardless of the color of their skin.  The difference between historical numbers and the 2008 election is marginal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>African Americans have voted overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential candidates in the last few decades ( usually 90 \ % or more ) regardless of the color of their skin .
The difference between historical numbers and the 2008 election is marginal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>African Americans have voted overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential candidates in the last few decades (usually 90\% or more) regardless of the color of their skin.
The difference between historical numbers and the 2008 election is marginal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239176</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259268480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did this get modded insightful? I'm mostly in agreement with your first point, but your second shows a vast ignorance of US history. The term "monkey" was, and in some places in the US still is, racist slang for someone that is african-american. Even the most cursory research into the history of racism in the US would make this clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did this get modded insightful ?
I 'm mostly in agreement with your first point , but your second shows a vast ignorance of US history .
The term " monkey " was , and in some places in the US still is , racist slang for someone that is african-american .
Even the most cursory research into the history of racism in the US would make this clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did this get modded insightful?
I'm mostly in agreement with your first point, but your second shows a vast ignorance of US history.
The term "monkey" was, and in some places in the US still is, racist slang for someone that is african-american.
Even the most cursory research into the history of racism in the US would make this clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239934</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if Darwin's theory mattered much in this context? Such comparisons are much older.</p><p>And for quite some time there seems to be inverse correlation, in many places, between accepting evolution and being racist; how long was the window when that wasn't the case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if Darwin 's theory mattered much in this context ?
Such comparisons are much older.And for quite some time there seems to be inverse correlation , in many places , between accepting evolution and being racist ; how long was the window when that was n't the case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if Darwin's theory mattered much in this context?
Such comparisons are much older.And for quite some time there seems to be inverse correlation, in many places, between accepting evolution and being racist; how long was the window when that wasn't the case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235398</id>
	<title>Something is wrong with the algorithm..</title>
	<author>mozumder</author>
	<datestamp>1259234820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. if that's what it thinks people WANTS to see when searching for Michelle Obama.</p><p>Redesign your algorithm please to be more useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. if that 's what it thinks people WANTS to see when searching for Michelle Obama.Redesign your algorithm please to be more useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. if that's what it thinks people WANTS to see when searching for Michelle Obama.Redesign your algorithm please to be more useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235848</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259239680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sometime it is hard to tell them apart</p><p>http://www.bushorchimp.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sometime it is hard to tell them aparthttp : //www.bushorchimp.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sometime it is hard to tell them aparthttp://www.bushorchimp.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239628</id>
	<title>Great job, guys! Keep it coming!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259229660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is to congratulate everyone who is spreading righteous anger over the picture in question, here and elsewhere, no matter what your race and persuasion are:</p><p>Great job, guys!</p><p>You have done immensely well to make it so that everyone knows (or is reminded) that comparing Blacks - and only and specifically Blacks - to apes is very, very bad thing to do, probably about as bad as, say, saying "fuck" to other people. I'm sure kids in America and all over the world will take that to heart, and will never, ever call any Black person an ape from now on for the fun of it, especially if they haven't previously thought of that idea, or didn't find it particularly funny to concentrate specifically on Blacks.</p><p>Once again, congratulations! I wish you best of luck in your endeavor of exterminating racism!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is to congratulate everyone who is spreading righteous anger over the picture in question , here and elsewhere , no matter what your race and persuasion are : Great job , guys ! You have done immensely well to make it so that everyone knows ( or is reminded ) that comparing Blacks - and only and specifically Blacks - to apes is very , very bad thing to do , probably about as bad as , say , saying " fuck " to other people .
I 'm sure kids in America and all over the world will take that to heart , and will never , ever call any Black person an ape from now on for the fun of it , especially if they have n't previously thought of that idea , or did n't find it particularly funny to concentrate specifically on Blacks.Once again , congratulations !
I wish you best of luck in your endeavor of exterminating racism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is to congratulate everyone who is spreading righteous anger over the picture in question, here and elsewhere, no matter what your race and persuasion are:Great job, guys!You have done immensely well to make it so that everyone knows (or is reminded) that comparing Blacks - and only and specifically Blacks - to apes is very, very bad thing to do, probably about as bad as, say, saying "fuck" to other people.
I'm sure kids in America and all over the world will take that to heart, and will never, ever call any Black person an ape from now on for the fun of it, especially if they haven't previously thought of that idea, or didn't find it particularly funny to concentrate specifically on Blacks.Once again, congratulations!
I wish you best of luck in your endeavor of exterminating racism!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235268</id>
	<title>censoring the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259233380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google staff these days are going downhill - they should have just made it less relevant showing up in page 100 or something</p><p>at least all these Michelle Obama monkey phrases showing up in the index will overcompensate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google staff these days are going downhill - they should have just made it less relevant showing up in page 100 or somethingat least all these Michelle Obama monkey phrases showing up in the index will overcompensate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google staff these days are going downhill - they should have just made it less relevant showing up in page 100 or somethingat least all these Michelle Obama monkey phrases showing up in the index will overcompensate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235858</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1259239740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no rational explanation, other than that the US is full of idiots who love being vicariously offended on behalf of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no rational explanation , other than that the US is full of idiots who love being vicariously offended on behalf of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no rational explanation, other than that the US is full of idiots who love being vicariously offended on behalf of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236874</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259250240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised that their view of history is so skewed. Wasn't it other blacks who sold them into slavery to begin with? Isn't it black leaders in Africa who are oppressing and mistreating entire nations of black people today? Aren't blacks the mayors of cities with the highest crime in the country?</p><p>My question is why in the world they think, given the history of black leadership, that it's any better for blacks than for white leadership? Not colorblind -- blinded by color.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that their view of history is so skewed .
Was n't it other blacks who sold them into slavery to begin with ?
Is n't it black leaders in Africa who are oppressing and mistreating entire nations of black people today ?
Are n't blacks the mayors of cities with the highest crime in the country ? My question is why in the world they think , given the history of black leadership , that it 's any better for blacks than for white leadership ?
Not colorblind -- blinded by color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that their view of history is so skewed.
Wasn't it other blacks who sold them into slavery to begin with?
Isn't it black leaders in Africa who are oppressing and mistreating entire nations of black people today?
Aren't blacks the mayors of cities with the highest crime in the country?My question is why in the world they think, given the history of black leadership, that it's any better for blacks than for white leadership?
Not colorblind -- blinded by color.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235832</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1259239500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That isn't racism, its human nature.</p></div><p>Just because something is part of human nature, does not mean it's not racist.. in fact it's the natural human "us/them" mentality that causes racism, sports related violence, religious wars and all that good stuff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/ I suppose it also drives things like capitalism.</p><p>Basically we are social animals, and need to feel we belong. On top of that, a lot of people like to believe that what they belong to is better than everything else.</p><p>It will be nice when everyone can think of "us" as the whole of humanity. Until we as a species have a more natural enemy (whether real or imagined) than other humans, things will probably continue to suck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't racism , its human nature.Just because something is part of human nature , does not mean it 's not racist.. in fact it 's the natural human " us/them " mentality that causes racism , sports related violence , religious wars and all that good stuff : / I suppose it also drives things like capitalism.Basically we are social animals , and need to feel we belong .
On top of that , a lot of people like to believe that what they belong to is better than everything else.It will be nice when everyone can think of " us " as the whole of humanity .
Until we as a species have a more natural enemy ( whether real or imagined ) than other humans , things will probably continue to suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't racism, its human nature.Just because something is part of human nature, does not mean it's not racist.. in fact it's the natural human "us/them" mentality that causes racism, sports related violence, religious wars and all that good stuff :/ I suppose it also drives things like capitalism.Basically we are social animals, and need to feel we belong.
On top of that, a lot of people like to believe that what they belong to is better than everything else.It will be nice when everyone can think of "us" as the whole of humanity.
Until we as a species have a more natural enemy (whether real or imagined) than other humans, things will probably continue to suck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238650</id>
	<title>Sick and tired of the anti-racist crowd.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259264100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so tired of all this racial crap. People complain when Michelle gets compared to a monkey, but no one complained when Bush did? People complain about black face, but has anyone here ever dated a darker skinned girl? Half of them use skin whiteners. Most models will lighten their face before a shoot to make themselves look young. Yet, thats not racist?</p><p>Racism has nothing to do with intent or whether something is negative or positive. It has to do with treating people differently on the basis of race. The most racist group I have seen in the last decade are the supposedly anti-racist people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so tired of all this racial crap .
People complain when Michelle gets compared to a monkey , but no one complained when Bush did ?
People complain about black face , but has anyone here ever dated a darker skinned girl ?
Half of them use skin whiteners .
Most models will lighten their face before a shoot to make themselves look young .
Yet , thats not racist ? Racism has nothing to do with intent or whether something is negative or positive .
It has to do with treating people differently on the basis of race .
The most racist group I have seen in the last decade are the supposedly anti-racist people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so tired of all this racial crap.
People complain when Michelle gets compared to a monkey, but no one complained when Bush did?
People complain about black face, but has anyone here ever dated a darker skinned girl?
Half of them use skin whiteners.
Most models will lighten their face before a shoot to make themselves look young.
Yet, thats not racist?Racism has nothing to do with intent or whether something is negative or positive.
It has to do with treating people differently on the basis of race.
The most racist group I have seen in the last decade are the supposedly anti-racist people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238504</id>
	<title>Political correctess fueled by fear</title>
	<author>Flipao</author>
	<datestamp>1259262960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That image should be a non story, the only reason people feign outrage over it is as a preemptive measure to avoid the stigma of being called "racist".</htmltext>
<tokenext>That image should be a non story , the only reason people feign outrage over it is as a preemptive measure to avoid the stigma of being called " racist " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That image should be a non story, the only reason people feign outrage over it is as a preemptive measure to avoid the stigma of being called "racist".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237198</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Jazz-Masta</author>
	<datestamp>1259252700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking about Michelle Obama, so compare it to Laura Bush.</p><p>If it was President Obama himself, it may be a hotter topic, but more acceptable as critisism or free speech. Michelle, seemingly, has done nothing to provoke the "attack."</p><p>It is similar to the Clinton's request that Chelsea be removed from the crosshairs of social scrutiny.</p><p>How would this shake out if it was the Obama's children that were subject to it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about Michelle Obama , so compare it to Laura Bush.If it was President Obama himself , it may be a hotter topic , but more acceptable as critisism or free speech .
Michelle , seemingly , has done nothing to provoke the " attack .
" It is similar to the Clinton 's request that Chelsea be removed from the crosshairs of social scrutiny.How would this shake out if it was the Obama 's children that were subject to it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about Michelle Obama, so compare it to Laura Bush.If it was President Obama himself, it may be a hotter topic, but more acceptable as critisism or free speech.
Michelle, seemingly, has done nothing to provoke the "attack.
"It is similar to the Clinton's request that Chelsea be removed from the crosshairs of social scrutiny.How would this shake out if it was the Obama's children that were subject to it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235412</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1259234940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many times are you going to copy/paste this swill?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times are you going to copy/paste this swill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times are you going to copy/paste this swill?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236664</id>
	<title>What about the Empire?</title>
	<author>FlyingHuck</author>
	<datestamp>1259248500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Monkey?  No... Klingon?  Yes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Monkey ?
No... Klingon ?
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monkey?
No... Klingon?
Yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238514</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259263020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always amazed by how conservative the slashdot crowd really is.  Every single 'Bush was a monkey' post was modded up, and every single poster has chosen to ignore the obviously racist subtones in the image.  The freedom of speech argument is valid, but you can't deny that the image is offensive.  MUCH more offensive then similar pictures of Bush.  The way Slashdot folk talk about race is pretty childish in general, essentially it's just encouraging everyone to feign ignorance with arguments like, 'if it's okay for black people to say n***** then it's okay for white people to say it too!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amazed by how conservative the slashdot crowd really is .
Every single 'Bush was a monkey ' post was modded up , and every single poster has chosen to ignore the obviously racist subtones in the image .
The freedom of speech argument is valid , but you ca n't deny that the image is offensive .
MUCH more offensive then similar pictures of Bush .
The way Slashdot folk talk about race is pretty childish in general , essentially it 's just encouraging everyone to feign ignorance with arguments like , 'if it 's okay for black people to say n * * * * * then it 's okay for white people to say it too !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amazed by how conservative the slashdot crowd really is.
Every single 'Bush was a monkey' post was modded up, and every single poster has chosen to ignore the obviously racist subtones in the image.
The freedom of speech argument is valid, but you can't deny that the image is offensive.
MUCH more offensive then similar pictures of Bush.
The way Slashdot folk talk about race is pretty childish in general, essentially it's just encouraging everyone to feign ignorance with arguments like, 'if it's okay for black people to say n***** then it's okay for white people to say it too!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235776</id>
	<title>remember Giordano Bruno?</title>
	<author>chichilalescu</author>
	<datestamp>1259238960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He was burned at the stake for heresy. You tell me of a priest who speaks about the dangers of questioning the bible, and I will do my best to censor him.
Fuck freedom of speech. People need to care about other people, not about stupid ideals.
In case you're wondering, I'm white.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He was burned at the stake for heresy .
You tell me of a priest who speaks about the dangers of questioning the bible , and I will do my best to censor him .
Fuck freedom of speech .
People need to care about other people , not about stupid ideals .
In case you 're wondering , I 'm white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was burned at the stake for heresy.
You tell me of a priest who speaks about the dangers of questioning the bible, and I will do my best to censor him.
Fuck freedom of speech.
People need to care about other people, not about stupid ideals.
In case you're wondering, I'm white.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236688</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>General Wesc</author>
	<datestamp>1259248680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but I have <em>never</em>, ever heard it as a racial slur before today, so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common.</p></div></blockquote><p>Alternative explanation: you haven't been paying the least bit of attention. Perhaps you should look up prior usage on Google. I'm finding <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2643392" title="go.com">plenty</a> [go.com] <a href="http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/E5A67661-DD1E-4A4A-A486-3C86F6198ED2/" title="clipmarks.com">of</a> [clipmarks.com] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nESZWVAJiiQ" title="youtube.com">citations</a> [youtube.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but I have never , ever heard it as a racial slur before today , so if it has been one in the past , it sure has n't been very common.Alternative explanation : you have n't been paying the least bit of attention .
Perhaps you should look up prior usage on Google .
I 'm finding plenty [ go.com ] of [ clipmarks.com ] citations [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I have never, ever heard it as a racial slur before today, so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common.Alternative explanation: you haven't been paying the least bit of attention.
Perhaps you should look up prior usage on Google.
I'm finding plenty [go.com] of [clipmarks.com] citations [youtube.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172</id>
	<title>Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.
<p>
In the past, numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians, and no one apologized for the caricatures.
</p><p>
In much the same way, the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama.  Allow me to explain.
</p><p>
During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
</p><p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President .
In the past , numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians , and no one apologized for the caricatures .
In much the same way , the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama .
Allow me to explain .
During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth of the matter is that the media -- and media aggregators like Google -- has been giving preferential treatment to Barack Hussein Obama because he is the first Kenyan-American to be President.
In the past, numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians, and no one apologized for the caricatures.
In much the same way, the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama.
Allow me to explain.
During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30241166</id>
	<title>I think it's funny</title>
	<author>taucross</author>
	<datestamp>1259242380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's funny because she looks like a monkey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's funny because she looks like a monkey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's funny because she looks like a monkey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236212</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259244540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It absolutely<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/is/ racism. It's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/the/ definition of racism. Regardless of whether or not you consider it human nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It absolutely /is/ racism .
It 's /the/ definition of racism .
Regardless of whether or not you consider it human nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It absolutely /is/ racism.
It's /the/ definition of racism.
Regardless of whether or not you consider it human nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30241696</id>
	<title>Re:If this isn't censorship and racist</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1259247180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh... yeah, he's white, so his monkey pics werent racist. They still offended many people, though, and there was certainly outcry against those pictures. I think the Bush-Nazi pics got even more attention, and rightly so: saying Bush is as dumb as an ape might be offensive, but far less so than to say that his atrocities were as bad as the atrocities of the Nazis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh... yeah , he 's white , so his monkey pics werent racist .
They still offended many people , though , and there was certainly outcry against those pictures .
I think the Bush-Nazi pics got even more attention , and rightly so : saying Bush is as dumb as an ape might be offensive , but far less so than to say that his atrocities were as bad as the atrocities of the Nazis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh... yeah, he's white, so his monkey pics werent racist.
They still offended many people, though, and there was certainly outcry against those pictures.
I think the Bush-Nazi pics got even more attention, and rightly so: saying Bush is as dumb as an ape might be offensive, but far less so than to say that his atrocities were as bad as the atrocities of the Nazis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30241682</id>
	<title>Re:double standard?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1259247000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those examples are all offensive, but only one is racist. You make a good point though: Michelle and her husband knew full well that they would be subjected to racism if they entered the public arena, and chose to do so. She is intelligent and successful, and can certainly handle the image in the internet.</p><p>The monkey pic is still racist though. There is no double standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those examples are all offensive , but only one is racist .
You make a good point though : Michelle and her husband knew full well that they would be subjected to racism if they entered the public arena , and chose to do so .
She is intelligent and successful , and can certainly handle the image in the internet.The monkey pic is still racist though .
There is no double standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those examples are all offensive, but only one is racist.
You make a good point though: Michelle and her husband knew full well that they would be subjected to racism if they entered the public arena, and chose to do so.
She is intelligent and successful, and can certainly handle the image in the internet.The monkey pic is still racist though.
There is no double standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237452</id>
	<title>Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259254440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Until we as a species have a more natural enemy (whether real or imagined)</i> <br> <br>

Like Global Warming?<br> <br>

Mod me into oblivion, I don't care anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until we as a species have a more natural enemy ( whether real or imagined ) Like Global Warming ?
Mod me into oblivion , I do n't care anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until we as a species have a more natural enemy (whether real or imagined)  

Like Global Warming?
Mod me into oblivion, I don't care anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234986</id>
	<title>Re:Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1259230200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... or mohammed caricatures etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
<p>
At least people can't complain now that Google isn't applying the same set of moral values to the US and China.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or mohammed caricatures etc .
.. . At least people ca n't complain now that Google is n't applying the same set of moral values to the US and China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or mohammed caricatures etc.
...

At least people can't complain now that Google isn't applying the same set of moral values to the US and China.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235952</id>
	<title>So much for freedom of speech.</title>
	<author>G\_REEPER</author>
	<datestamp>1259240940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter what your opinion of obama or the picture it falls under the freedom of speech clause of the Constitution. I may have to read and listen to liberal global warming BS, but i do not complain about their right to open their out and spew it, just about the junk science. I read tons of post about censorship in China well where are those same voices now?</p><p>Now, how many times has<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.done the same without us even knowing?? Back when<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. first started I thought it was completely above board in the past several year you do see a distinct left sided view being  promoted.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what your opinion of obama or the picture it falls under the freedom of speech clause of the Constitution .
I may have to read and listen to liberal global warming BS , but i do not complain about their right to open their out and spew it , just about the junk science .
I read tons of post about censorship in China well where are those same voices now ? Now , how many times has /.done the same without us even knowing ? ?
Back when / .
first started I thought it was completely above board in the past several year you do see a distinct left sided view being promoted .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what your opinion of obama or the picture it falls under the freedom of speech clause of the Constitution.
I may have to read and listen to liberal global warming BS, but i do not complain about their right to open their out and spew it, just about the junk science.
I read tons of post about censorship in China well where are those same voices now?Now, how many times has /.done the same without us even knowing??
Back when /.
first started I thought it was completely above board in the past several year you do see a distinct left sided view being  promoted.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235610</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep this yer typical "nigger" logic. OMG once I was oppressed therefor now I can do and say what the oppressers once did to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep this yer typical " nigger " logic .
OMG once I was oppressed therefor now I can do and say what the oppressers once did to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep this yer typical "nigger" logic.
OMG once I was oppressed therefor now I can do and say what the oppressers once did to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235690</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So being black protects you from certain insults even though the content is <i>exactly the same?</i> Isn't that in and of itself racist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So being black protects you from certain insults even though the content is exactly the same ?
Is n't that in and of itself racist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So being black protects you from certain insults even though the content is exactly the same?
Isn't that in and of itself racist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235896</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259240220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>my <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1457760&amp;cid=30235844" title="slashdot.org">response</a> [slashdot.org] to a different reply applies to you as well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>my response [ slashdot.org ] to a different reply applies to you as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my response [slashdot.org] to a different reply applies to you as well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234996</id>
	<title>Re:Well, something *has* changed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259230260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Its called freedom of speech, and it looks like someone in the administration got buddy buddy with google and had it removed, stepping all over the creators freedom of speech.</p><p>Sure it may be offensive, but its still the creators right (for now) to be able to have something like that online. for google to purposely alter their search results is just wrong.</p><p>Scares me even more about google, all the info they collect, and im sure they have no problem handing it over to the Govt if the right person in the govt asks, or the govt asks the right person within google who will bend the rules a bit.</p><p>This will even more so keep me away from google's "cloud computing" and other services. I still use their search, but will in no way EVER use their services for my day to day communication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Its called freedom of speech , and it looks like someone in the administration got buddy buddy with google and had it removed , stepping all over the creators freedom of speech.Sure it may be offensive , but its still the creators right ( for now ) to be able to have something like that online .
for google to purposely alter their search results is just wrong.Scares me even more about google , all the info they collect , and im sure they have no problem handing it over to the Govt if the right person in the govt asks , or the govt asks the right person within google who will bend the rules a bit.This will even more so keep me away from google 's " cloud computing " and other services .
I still use their search , but will in no way EVER use their services for my day to day communication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Its called freedom of speech, and it looks like someone in the administration got buddy buddy with google and had it removed, stepping all over the creators freedom of speech.Sure it may be offensive, but its still the creators right (for now) to be able to have something like that online.
for google to purposely alter their search results is just wrong.Scares me even more about google, all the info they collect, and im sure they have no problem handing it over to the Govt if the right person in the govt asks, or the govt asks the right person within google who will bend the rules a bit.This will even more so keep me away from google's "cloud computing" and other services.
I still use their search, but will in no way EVER use their services for my day to day communication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30242040</id>
	<title>Re:Oh those double standards.</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1259250780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. On the Condoleezza page I didn't see any depictions of her as a monkey, or other racial thing, but there is her seemingly pregnant with a monkey, which may or may not represent Bush. The caption on that image is in Arabic (or something) so I don't know whether that has a racial meaning; in my understanding, I guess it doesn't. So that pagefull of images doesn't really support your point, but if it did feature Rice-monkey images, then that would be racist.</p><p>The page for Steele likewise doesn't have any monkey images, but has several of him in blackface. That is efinitely racist. Not only is the shown type of blackface racist on its own, but the deeper implication is that Steele is a white man pretending to be a black man, since that is the typical context of that kind of blackface. I'm offended by that, even though Steele is a bit of a jackass.</p><p>Back to the Condoleezza page: she is a remarkably brilliant and successful American woman, despite her deeply misguided policies. So there is an image of her face imposed on the butt-end of a horse. This is a great example of a politically-motivated image which is intentionally <b>offensive</b>, but not <b>racist</b>, because horses aren't a common stereotype of black people as far as I know. This is the distinction that people pretend not to understand when they pretend to equate Bush-monkey pictures with Obama-monkey pictures, or when they pretend that there is a double standard. It is a feat of logical gymnastics to claim a double standard when there is only one standard: <b>it is racist to use stereotypes of a race to disparage members of that race</b>. One standard; no double standard. We can't make racist pictures of Bush eating watermelons, and we can't make racist pictures of Obama eating crackers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
On the Condoleezza page I did n't see any depictions of her as a monkey , or other racial thing , but there is her seemingly pregnant with a monkey , which may or may not represent Bush .
The caption on that image is in Arabic ( or something ) so I do n't know whether that has a racial meaning ; in my understanding , I guess it does n't .
So that pagefull of images does n't really support your point , but if it did feature Rice-monkey images , then that would be racist.The page for Steele likewise does n't have any monkey images , but has several of him in blackface .
That is efinitely racist .
Not only is the shown type of blackface racist on its own , but the deeper implication is that Steele is a white man pretending to be a black man , since that is the typical context of that kind of blackface .
I 'm offended by that , even though Steele is a bit of a jackass.Back to the Condoleezza page : she is a remarkably brilliant and successful American woman , despite her deeply misguided policies .
So there is an image of her face imposed on the butt-end of a horse .
This is a great example of a politically-motivated image which is intentionally offensive , but not racist , because horses are n't a common stereotype of black people as far as I know .
This is the distinction that people pretend not to understand when they pretend to equate Bush-monkey pictures with Obama-monkey pictures , or when they pretend that there is a double standard .
It is a feat of logical gymnastics to claim a double standard when there is only one standard : it is racist to use stereotypes of a race to disparage members of that race .
One standard ; no double standard .
We ca n't make racist pictures of Bush eating watermelons , and we ca n't make racist pictures of Obama eating crackers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
On the Condoleezza page I didn't see any depictions of her as a monkey, or other racial thing, but there is her seemingly pregnant with a monkey, which may or may not represent Bush.
The caption on that image is in Arabic (or something) so I don't know whether that has a racial meaning; in my understanding, I guess it doesn't.
So that pagefull of images doesn't really support your point, but if it did feature Rice-monkey images, then that would be racist.The page for Steele likewise doesn't have any monkey images, but has several of him in blackface.
That is efinitely racist.
Not only is the shown type of blackface racist on its own, but the deeper implication is that Steele is a white man pretending to be a black man, since that is the typical context of that kind of blackface.
I'm offended by that, even though Steele is a bit of a jackass.Back to the Condoleezza page: she is a remarkably brilliant and successful American woman, despite her deeply misguided policies.
So there is an image of her face imposed on the butt-end of a horse.
This is a great example of a politically-motivated image which is intentionally offensive, but not racist, because horses aren't a common stereotype of black people as far as I know.
This is the distinction that people pretend not to understand when they pretend to equate Bush-monkey pictures with Obama-monkey pictures, or when they pretend that there is a double standard.
It is a feat of logical gymnastics to claim a double standard when there is only one standard: it is racist to use stereotypes of a race to disparage members of that race.
One standard; no double standard.
We can't make racist pictures of Bush eating watermelons, and we can't make racist pictures of Obama eating crackers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236866</id>
	<title>saying it could spread malware.</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1259250180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least viral memes.  Very cyberpunk solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least viral memes .
Very cyberpunk solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least viral memes.
Very cyberpunk solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235408</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259234880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... but find another way to express that can't be <b>misinterpreted</b> along racial grounds.</p></div><p>Either you're really naive, or you've hit the nail on the head. Calling a black person a monkey is indeed racist, but maybe that's not the connotation intended. Misinterpreted indeed.<br> <br>By the way, Streissand Effect?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but find another way to express that ca n't be misinterpreted along racial grounds.Either you 're really naive , or you 've hit the nail on the head .
Calling a black person a monkey is indeed racist , but maybe that 's not the connotation intended .
Misinterpreted indeed .
By the way , Streissand Effect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... but find another way to express that can't be misinterpreted along racial grounds.Either you're really naive, or you've hit the nail on the head.
Calling a black person a monkey is indeed racist, but maybe that's not the connotation intended.
Misinterpreted indeed.
By the way, Streissand Effect?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239572</id>
	<title>Re:"Michelle Obama ape"...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259229180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>racism is very close to fascism</p></div><p>Racism isn't very close to fascism. Fascism is the belief in the supremacy of the State over individual, and any other societal construct. It doesn't have to be racist. In fact, historically, the original Italian fascism (which is about as "true" as it gets) wasn't racist until the alliance with Hitler effectively required some showing to be considered worthy. Mussolini did make racist remarks from time to time before that, but this statement of his nails the official party line: "Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... National pride has no need of the delirium of race."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>that's not an opinion, it's a crime</p></div><p>Holding fascist opinions isn't by itself a crime. Implementing them may be a crime in some countries (e.g. Germany, where constitution forbids any non-democratic politics, and the relevant parts of it are immutable), but not in others.</p><p>For example, in the U.S., it would be absolutely legal to form a fascist party (it could even call itself Fascist, and use the traditional symbols), have it gain the majority in Congress by democratic means, write fascist laws (insofar as they don't contradict the U.S. Constitution), and, given enough popular support, even amend the Constitution to permit a full implementation of fascism (including dismantling of democracy).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>racism is very close to fascismRacism is n't very close to fascism .
Fascism is the belief in the supremacy of the State over individual , and any other societal construct .
It does n't have to be racist .
In fact , historically , the original Italian fascism ( which is about as " true " as it gets ) was n't racist until the alliance with Hitler effectively required some showing to be considered worthy .
Mussolini did make racist remarks from time to time before that , but this statement of his nails the official party line : " Race !
It is a feeling , not a reality : ninety-five percent , at least , is a feeling .
Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today .
... National pride has no need of the delirium of race .
" that 's not an opinion , it 's a crimeHolding fascist opinions is n't by itself a crime .
Implementing them may be a crime in some countries ( e.g .
Germany , where constitution forbids any non-democratic politics , and the relevant parts of it are immutable ) , but not in others.For example , in the U.S. , it would be absolutely legal to form a fascist party ( it could even call itself Fascist , and use the traditional symbols ) , have it gain the majority in Congress by democratic means , write fascist laws ( insofar as they do n't contradict the U.S. Constitution ) , and , given enough popular support , even amend the Constitution to permit a full implementation of fascism ( including dismantling of democracy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>racism is very close to fascismRacism isn't very close to fascism.
Fascism is the belief in the supremacy of the State over individual, and any other societal construct.
It doesn't have to be racist.
In fact, historically, the original Italian fascism (which is about as "true" as it gets) wasn't racist until the alliance with Hitler effectively required some showing to be considered worthy.
Mussolini did make racist remarks from time to time before that, but this statement of his nails the official party line: "Race!
It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling.
Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.
... National pride has no need of the delirium of race.
"that's not an opinion, it's a crimeHolding fascist opinions isn't by itself a crime.
Implementing them may be a crime in some countries (e.g.
Germany, where constitution forbids any non-democratic politics, and the relevant parts of it are immutable), but not in others.For example, in the U.S., it would be absolutely legal to form a fascist party (it could even call itself Fascist, and use the traditional symbols), have it gain the majority in Congress by democratic means, write fascist laws (insofar as they don't contradict the U.S. Constitution), and, given enough popular support, even amend the Constitution to permit a full implementation of fascism (including dismantling of democracy).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30252200</id>
	<title>Re:Someone explain this to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop acting like your ignorance shields you from reality. You spend paragraphs wailing and fucking moaning about how ignorant you are, demanding someone else do your own research for you because you're a lazy shit.</p><p>Go fucking google it next time. Jesus christ, you fucking holocaust deniers make me sick with all your "well, I wasn't there so how am I supposed to know..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop acting like your ignorance shields you from reality .
You spend paragraphs wailing and fucking moaning about how ignorant you are , demanding someone else do your own research for you because you 're a lazy shit.Go fucking google it next time .
Jesus christ , you fucking holocaust deniers make me sick with all your " well , I was n't there so how am I supposed to know... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop acting like your ignorance shields you from reality.
You spend paragraphs wailing and fucking moaning about how ignorant you are, demanding someone else do your own research for you because you're a lazy shit.Go fucking google it next time.
Jesus christ, you fucking holocaust deniers make me sick with all your "well, I wasn't there so how am I supposed to know..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235734</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.</p></div><p>Yes. I have a great joke about sudden infant death syndrome, and a friend who los a little sister to it - I do not use that joke when he is around. I have acquaintances in wheelchairs, who know the best jokes about their condition - but I will not presume that is OK to repeat them in front of any wheel-chair-bound person I meet.</p><p>Of course you should think about what you are saying, based on who you are with. Comparing Bush to a monkey brings up thoughts of stupidity, comparing Michelle Obama brings up racist analogies.<br>It would be nice if our entire culture was such, that one did not even consider the racist viewpoint. But when you make a picture of a black person as a monkey, you do, in actual fact, bring up that way of thinking. And you even seem to endorse, or at least rely on it for your criticism/humor/message/whatever.</p><p>So yes. Until racism is abolished, watch what you say to or about people of races-who-have-been-or-are-routinely-discriminated-against/enslaved. And yes, that does suck and is another stupid side-effect of stupid people's moronic beliefs and actions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see , so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.Yes .
I have a great joke about sudden infant death syndrome , and a friend who los a little sister to it - I do not use that joke when he is around .
I have acquaintances in wheelchairs , who know the best jokes about their condition - but I will not presume that is OK to repeat them in front of any wheel-chair-bound person I meet.Of course you should think about what you are saying , based on who you are with .
Comparing Bush to a monkey brings up thoughts of stupidity , comparing Michelle Obama brings up racist analogies.It would be nice if our entire culture was such , that one did not even consider the racist viewpoint .
But when you make a picture of a black person as a monkey , you do , in actual fact , bring up that way of thinking .
And you even seem to endorse , or at least rely on it for your criticism/humor/message/whatever.So yes .
Until racism is abolished , watch what you say to or about people of races-who-have-been-or-are-routinely-discriminated-against/enslaved .
And yes , that does suck and is another stupid side-effect of stupid people 's moronic beliefs and actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.Yes.
I have a great joke about sudden infant death syndrome, and a friend who los a little sister to it - I do not use that joke when he is around.
I have acquaintances in wheelchairs, who know the best jokes about their condition - but I will not presume that is OK to repeat them in front of any wheel-chair-bound person I meet.Of course you should think about what you are saying, based on who you are with.
Comparing Bush to a monkey brings up thoughts of stupidity, comparing Michelle Obama brings up racist analogies.It would be nice if our entire culture was such, that one did not even consider the racist viewpoint.
But when you make a picture of a black person as a monkey, you do, in actual fact, bring up that way of thinking.
And you even seem to endorse, or at least rely on it for your criticism/humor/message/whatever.So yes.
Until racism is abolished, watch what you say to or about people of races-who-have-been-or-are-routinely-discriminated-against/enslaved.
And yes, that does suck and is another stupid side-effect of stupid people's moronic beliefs and actions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236478</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259246940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because it was speciesist not racist - and it was true, and your momma is fat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because it was speciesist not racist - and it was true , and your momma is fat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because it was speciesist not racist - and it was true, and your momma is fat</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235130</id>
	<title>Not too fast...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259231940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they should allow the picture to be shown. It accurately catalogues one of the varied opinions that humans have of one another. It doesn't matter that it's offensive. That's a judgement call that one has to make for ones' self. Who's to judge what is correct or not. It kinda gets scary when someone or some entity becomes the sole arbiter of what is right and moral.</p><p>In this case, I really think it's uncalled for and, frankly, more damaging to the poster than to the one posted about but it's the poseter's choice to express his opinion no matter how much of a fool he might seem because of the opinion he has expressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should allow the picture to be shown .
It accurately catalogues one of the varied opinions that humans have of one another .
It does n't matter that it 's offensive .
That 's a judgement call that one has to make for ones ' self .
Who 's to judge what is correct or not .
It kinda gets scary when someone or some entity becomes the sole arbiter of what is right and moral.In this case , I really think it 's uncalled for and , frankly , more damaging to the poster than to the one posted about but it 's the poseter 's choice to express his opinion no matter how much of a fool he might seem because of the opinion he has expressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should allow the picture to be shown.
It accurately catalogues one of the varied opinions that humans have of one another.
It doesn't matter that it's offensive.
That's a judgement call that one has to make for ones' self.
Who's to judge what is correct or not.
It kinda gets scary when someone or some entity becomes the sole arbiter of what is right and moral.In this case, I really think it's uncalled for and, frankly, more damaging to the poster than to the one posted about but it's the poseter's choice to express his opinion no matter how much of a fool he might seem because of the opinion he has expressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237852</id>
	<title>Re:"racially offensive"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259257740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if people in countries where the majority is black find pictures of Bush turned black "racially offensive", or is just the US</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if people in countries where the majority is black find pictures of Bush turned black " racially offensive " , or is just the US</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if people in countries where the majority is black find pictures of Bush turned black "racially offensive", or is just the US</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235154</id>
	<title>Re:Good Job guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At the moment it suggests searching for "Michelle Obama monkey" when you search for "Michelle Obama"</p></div><p>Personally, I think that's an astonishingly good suggestion. Well done Google!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment it suggests searching for " Michelle Obama monkey " when you search for " Michelle Obama " Personally , I think that 's an astonishingly good suggestion .
Well done Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment it suggests searching for "Michelle Obama monkey" when you search for "Michelle Obama"Personally, I think that's an astonishingly good suggestion.
Well done Google!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235370</id>
	<title>It's their website</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259234520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's their website so they can do whatever they want with it. If they want to ban gays,fine... If they want to ban pictures fine. There's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to control the content on their own site. If people don't like the content of Google then they can easily direct their browsers elsewhere. Google have a right to freedom of expression too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's their website so they can do whatever they want with it .
If they want to ban gays,fine... If they want to ban pictures fine .
There 's no reason why they should n't be allowed to control the content on their own site .
If people do n't like the content of Google then they can easily direct their browsers elsewhere .
Google have a right to freedom of expression too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's their website so they can do whatever they want with it.
If they want to ban gays,fine... If they want to ban pictures fine.
There's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to control the content on their own site.
If people don't like the content of Google then they can easily direct their browsers elsewhere.
Google have a right to freedom of expression too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235484</id>
	<title>The image in question</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1259235720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is part of a "popular people morphed into monkeys" series, which has been around for a long time, and includes wide assortment of people of all races. There is no evidence of racial subtext or any other message beside, well "popular people morphed into monkeys".<br> <br>

What this shows is that people in US aren't a lot better when it comes to being disproportionately offended by some innocent image in the media. Good thing Google has reacted quickly in the face of, to quote CNN, "the firestorm of criticism", before people started turning cars upside down and burning Google logo flags, huh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is part of a " popular people morphed into monkeys " series , which has been around for a long time , and includes wide assortment of people of all races .
There is no evidence of racial subtext or any other message beside , well " popular people morphed into monkeys " .
What this shows is that people in US are n't a lot better when it comes to being disproportionately offended by some innocent image in the media .
Good thing Google has reacted quickly in the face of , to quote CNN , " the firestorm of criticism " , before people started turning cars upside down and burning Google logo flags , huh ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is part of a "popular people morphed into monkeys" series, which has been around for a long time, and includes wide assortment of people of all races.
There is no evidence of racial subtext or any other message beside, well "popular people morphed into monkeys".
What this shows is that people in US aren't a lot better when it comes to being disproportionately offended by some innocent image in the media.
Good thing Google has reacted quickly in the face of, to quote CNN, "the firestorm of criticism", before people started turning cars upside down and burning Google logo flags, huh ;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235240</id>
	<title>Google isn't a free speech outlet.</title>
	<author>SamSim</author>
	<datestamp>1259233020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In theory they can list or not list any results they like, whatever combination is most profitable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory they can list or not list any results they like , whatever combination is most profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory they can list or not list any results they like, whatever combination is most profitable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30241696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30240580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30242040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30258686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30241682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30252160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30252200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_0311249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30242040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30241696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235610
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235558
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30252200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30239502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30241682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30252160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236786
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236244
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_0311249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30234948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235712
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236212
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235884
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30238028
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30236874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235832
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237452
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30258686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30240580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30237146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_0311249.30235154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
