<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_07_105253</id>
	<title>Canada Supreme Court Broadens Internet "Luring" Offense</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260191580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader points out this report that a Canadian Supreme Court has broadened its interpretation of an existing law designed to punish adults who attempt to meet children online for criminal purposes; under the court's interpretation, says the article, that would now "include <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091203/Luring\_Charges\_091203/20091203?hub=Canada">anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child</a> &mdash;  even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim." The story quotes Mark Hecht, of the organization Beyond Borders, thus: "If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime."</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader points out this report that a Canadian Supreme Court has broadened its interpretation of an existing law designed to punish adults who attempt to meet children online for criminal purposes ; under the court 's interpretation , says the article , that would now " include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child    even if the chats are n't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim .
" The story quotes Mark Hecht , of the organization Beyond Borders , thus : " If you 're an adult and if you 're having conversations with a child on the Internet , be warned because even if your conversations are n't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child , what you 're doing is potentially a crime .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader points out this report that a Canadian Supreme Court has broadened its interpretation of an existing law designed to punish adults who attempt to meet children online for criminal purposes; under the court's interpretation, says the article, that would now "include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child —  even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim.
" The story quotes Mark Hecht, of the organization Beyond Borders, thus: "If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353758</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1260204900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been others to answer well, but I must just chime in more support.  Half the joy of the internet is communication - not through static pages but through interaction with other people.  When I was under 18 I went online to lots of computer forums and such asking for advice on how to do this and that.</p><p>Being older now I've also played WoW and there are minors in guild chat just talking like everyone else.  Is there any reason why I can't discuss the new Batman movie or another game I'm playing with teenagers in guild chat?</p><p>Or particularly relevant - I like to play guitar (actually I'm more of a gear-head than a good player, but I try to keep it balanced<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)).  As such I hang out on a lot of guitar forums, and just like I once did for computers, kids are constantly asking for help on all sorts of things.  What guitar to buy, string/pickup/amp selection, etc.</p><p>I'm also a pilot and some student pilots (you can solo a glider at 14 - airplanes at 16) will come online asking for advice from other pilots.</p><p>Overall the idea that "anyone talking at all to a kid that's not their own is up to no good" is just laughable.  Kids - particularly in the teenage bracket, are at an age when their interests and such will quite possibly start to veer into things their parents don't share (hell aside from fishing I don't think I have a single interest in common with my dad).  To learn about those things they're often going to seek out other people who share those interests, and those people will often be adults.  Why limit them based on the crazy assumption that all adults want to molest your child?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been others to answer well , but I must just chime in more support .
Half the joy of the internet is communication - not through static pages but through interaction with other people .
When I was under 18 I went online to lots of computer forums and such asking for advice on how to do this and that.Being older now I 've also played WoW and there are minors in guild chat just talking like everyone else .
Is there any reason why I ca n't discuss the new Batman movie or another game I 'm playing with teenagers in guild chat ? Or particularly relevant - I like to play guitar ( actually I 'm more of a gear-head than a good player , but I try to keep it balanced : ) ) .
As such I hang out on a lot of guitar forums , and just like I once did for computers , kids are constantly asking for help on all sorts of things .
What guitar to buy , string/pickup/amp selection , etc.I 'm also a pilot and some student pilots ( you can solo a glider at 14 - airplanes at 16 ) will come online asking for advice from other pilots.Overall the idea that " anyone talking at all to a kid that 's not their own is up to no good " is just laughable .
Kids - particularly in the teenage bracket , are at an age when their interests and such will quite possibly start to veer into things their parents do n't share ( hell aside from fishing I do n't think I have a single interest in common with my dad ) .
To learn about those things they 're often going to seek out other people who share those interests , and those people will often be adults .
Why limit them based on the crazy assumption that all adults want to molest your child ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been others to answer well, but I must just chime in more support.
Half the joy of the internet is communication - not through static pages but through interaction with other people.
When I was under 18 I went online to lots of computer forums and such asking for advice on how to do this and that.Being older now I've also played WoW and there are minors in guild chat just talking like everyone else.
Is there any reason why I can't discuss the new Batman movie or another game I'm playing with teenagers in guild chat?Or particularly relevant - I like to play guitar (actually I'm more of a gear-head than a good player, but I try to keep it balanced :)).
As such I hang out on a lot of guitar forums, and just like I once did for computers, kids are constantly asking for help on all sorts of things.
What guitar to buy, string/pickup/amp selection, etc.I'm also a pilot and some student pilots (you can solo a glider at 14 - airplanes at 16) will come online asking for advice from other pilots.Overall the idea that "anyone talking at all to a kid that's not their own is up to no good" is just laughable.
Kids - particularly in the teenage bracket, are at an age when their interests and such will quite possibly start to veer into things their parents don't share (hell aside from fishing I don't think I have a single interest in common with my dad).
To learn about those things they're often going to seek out other people who share those interests, and those people will often be adults.
Why limit them based on the crazy assumption that all adults want to molest your child?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351800</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And just how is someone to know if it's a child one is chatting with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And just how is someone to know if it 's a child one is chatting with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just how is someone to know if it's a child one is chatting with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352410</id>
	<title>"Hard cases make bad law"</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1260198600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the proof that "hard cases make bad law". Based on the behavior of one slimeball, the court now seeks to criminalize an entire category of behavior. This now includes any conversation that (TFA) "could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of." Note that "to be taken advantage of" can be by anyone - it is no longer necessary for the person holding the conversation to have any ill intent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the proof that " hard cases make bad law " .
Based on the behavior of one slimeball , the court now seeks to criminalize an entire category of behavior .
This now includes any conversation that ( TFA ) " could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of .
" Note that " to be taken advantage of " can be by anyone - it is no longer necessary for the person holding the conversation to have any ill intent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the proof that "hard cases make bad law".
Based on the behavior of one slimeball, the court now seeks to criminalize an entire category of behavior.
This now includes any conversation that (TFA) "could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.
" Note that "to be taken advantage of" can be by anyone - it is no longer necessary for the person holding the conversation to have any ill intent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359074</id>
	<title>Re:More at 11.</title>
	<author>GrubLord</author>
	<datestamp>1260187740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A worldwide shift back to the "Seen, but not heard," philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.</p></div><p>Come to think of it, depending on what they're wearing or how they are posed, that 'seeing' part might be illegal too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A worldwide shift back to the " Seen , but not heard , " philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.Come to think of it , depending on what they 're wearing or how they are posed , that 'seeing ' part might be illegal too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A worldwide shift back to the "Seen, but not heard," philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.Come to think of it, depending on what they're wearing or how they are posed, that 'seeing' part might be illegal too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353354</id>
	<title>Build the walls</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1260203100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than arrest people based on this law, they should just build a wall around 4chan and declare it a prison. More efficient that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than arrest people based on this law , they should just build a wall around 4chan and declare it a prison .
More efficient that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than arrest people based on this law, they should just build a wall around 4chan and declare it a prison.
More efficient that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352480</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1260198900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We do have double jeopardy in Canada. This would presumptively be like charging somebody for aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon. Not really in violation of double jeopardy but still ridiculous in its own right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do have double jeopardy in Canada .
This would presumptively be like charging somebody for aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon .
Not really in violation of double jeopardy but still ridiculous in its own right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do have double jeopardy in Canada.
This would presumptively be like charging somebody for aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon.
Not really in violation of double jeopardy but still ridiculous in its own right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352742</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1260200100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because I'm sure you know exactly what your kids get up to and say when you're not around.</p><p>I suppose they're god worshipping virgins too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because I 'm sure you know exactly what your kids get up to and say when you 're not around.I suppose they 're god worshipping virgins too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because I'm sure you know exactly what your kids get up to and say when you're not around.I suppose they're god worshipping virgins too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351748</id>
	<title>False Positves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article doesn't specify whether the counterparty in the chat has to have claimed to be a child.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't specify whether the counterparty in the chat has to have claimed to be a child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't specify whether the counterparty in the chat has to have claimed to be a child.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355892</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>noric</author>
	<datestamp>1260214200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought we were too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tear</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we were too .
/tear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we were too.
/tear</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</id>
	<title>So Wait...</title>
	<author>d3ac0n</author>
	<datestamp>1260195480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm playing an MMO and strike up a text chat with another character, not having any idea that this person is LEGALLY a "child"  (IE:  Under 18 years of age) and the conversation turns to drinking, then I could be ARRESTED in Canada?</p><p>WTF Canadians?  I thought you people were nice and sensible!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm playing an MMO and strike up a text chat with another character , not having any idea that this person is LEGALLY a " child " ( IE : Under 18 years of age ) and the conversation turns to drinking , then I could be ARRESTED in Canada ? WTF Canadians ?
I thought you people were nice and sensible !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm playing an MMO and strike up a text chat with another character, not having any idea that this person is LEGALLY a "child"  (IE:  Under 18 years of age) and the conversation turns to drinking, then I could be ARRESTED in Canada?WTF Canadians?
I thought you people were nice and sensible!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357142</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Canada it's not illegal to be a racist, or to say racist things. It's illegal to intentionally (or perhaps negligently) use speech to cause violence against a group of people, as it is against an individual (but less so). The same is generally true of the USA: you can use a firearm, or speech, but if you cause harm with them you're responsible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Canada it 's not illegal to be a racist , or to say racist things .
It 's illegal to intentionally ( or perhaps negligently ) use speech to cause violence against a group of people , as it is against an individual ( but less so ) .
The same is generally true of the USA : you can use a firearm , or speech , but if you cause harm with them you 're responsible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Canada it's not illegal to be a racist, or to say racist things.
It's illegal to intentionally (or perhaps negligently) use speech to cause violence against a group of people, as it is against an individual (but less so).
The same is generally true of the USA: you can use a firearm, or speech, but if you cause harm with them you're responsible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352766</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260200220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's now a crime to talk to all children on the internet. Nice interpretation, time to close down all the MMO games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's now a crime to talk to all children on the internet .
Nice interpretation , time to close down all the MMO games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's now a crime to talk to all children on the internet.
Nice interpretation, time to close down all the MMO games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353958</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260205680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory the Crown (prosecution) can appeal the verdict to the next higher court, then the next, up to the Supreme Court, just like the defense.  In reality, this rarely happens, and never all the way to the Supreme Court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory the Crown ( prosecution ) can appeal the verdict to the next higher court , then the next , up to the Supreme Court , just like the defense .
In reality , this rarely happens , and never all the way to the Supreme Court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory the Crown (prosecution) can appeal the verdict to the next higher court, then the next, up to the Supreme Court, just like the defense.
In reality, this rarely happens, and never all the way to the Supreme Court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352910</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260201000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I really don't want some random stranger to be talking to my 9 year old."</p><p>Well, WoW has been rated 12+ by most rating agencies (ESRB, PEGI, USK).</p><p>If you are afraid of random strangers, keep your child off the internet; for its and everbody else's sake. The fewer children, the fewer "fro teh chrildren!!!1" censorship fanatics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I really do n't want some random stranger to be talking to my 9 year old .
" Well , WoW has been rated 12 + by most rating agencies ( ESRB , PEGI , USK ) .If you are afraid of random strangers , keep your child off the internet ; for its and everbody else 's sake .
The fewer children , the fewer " fro teh chrildren ! !
! 1 " censorship fanatics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I really don't want some random stranger to be talking to my 9 year old.
"Well, WoW has been rated 12+ by most rating agencies (ESRB, PEGI, USK).If you are afraid of random strangers, keep your child off the internet; for its and everbody else's sake.
The fewer children, the fewer "fro teh chrildren!!
!1" censorship fanatics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356972</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the day</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1260219420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So many of the old haunts were slowly invaded by LEOs blundering their way through silly entrapment schemes</i> <br> <br>My understanding is that the LEOs would do more monitoring of actual children's boards, and the 14 year old Californian cheerleaders on adult boards were either guys of questionable sexuality that wanted to fill some fantasy, or some later age teens wanting to tease men then call them perverts.  Despite the claims that LEOs were out there, I didn't run across anyone that wanted to meet.  I'm just curious what you ran across LEO-wise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So many of the old haunts were slowly invaded by LEOs blundering their way through silly entrapment schemes My understanding is that the LEOs would do more monitoring of actual children 's boards , and the 14 year old Californian cheerleaders on adult boards were either guys of questionable sexuality that wanted to fill some fantasy , or some later age teens wanting to tease men then call them perverts .
Despite the claims that LEOs were out there , I did n't run across anyone that wanted to meet .
I 'm just curious what you ran across LEO-wise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many of the old haunts were slowly invaded by LEOs blundering their way through silly entrapment schemes  My understanding is that the LEOs would do more monitoring of actual children's boards, and the 14 year old Californian cheerleaders on adult boards were either guys of questionable sexuality that wanted to fill some fantasy, or some later age teens wanting to tease men then call them perverts.
Despite the claims that LEOs were out there, I didn't run across anyone that wanted to meet.
I'm just curious what you ran across LEO-wise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351858</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1260196140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is in Canada evidently....<br>Although it also is in the US, UK, AUS, and a fair few other places thanks to insanely broad anti-terrorism laws. If you talk to a "terrorist" even if you don't know they're a terrorist and have no intention of conducting terrorism you can be breaking the law.</p><p>But then again owning a standard middle school science book is also technically illegal depending on how you read the anti-terrorism act(s). So really it is just a thought crime. If they associate you with it they will nab you for it with or without evidence.</p><p>It is the same in this case... They want to make paedophilia a thought crime and thus if you are associated with it by anyone then you are breaking a law...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is in Canada evidently....Although it also is in the US , UK , AUS , and a fair few other places thanks to insanely broad anti-terrorism laws .
If you talk to a " terrorist " even if you do n't know they 're a terrorist and have no intention of conducting terrorism you can be breaking the law.But then again owning a standard middle school science book is also technically illegal depending on how you read the anti-terrorism act ( s ) .
So really it is just a thought crime .
If they associate you with it they will nab you for it with or without evidence.It is the same in this case... They want to make paedophilia a thought crime and thus if you are associated with it by anyone then you are breaking a law.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is in Canada evidently....Although it also is in the US, UK, AUS, and a fair few other places thanks to insanely broad anti-terrorism laws.
If you talk to a "terrorist" even if you don't know they're a terrorist and have no intention of conducting terrorism you can be breaking the law.But then again owning a standard middle school science book is also technically illegal depending on how you read the anti-terrorism act(s).
So really it is just a thought crime.
If they associate you with it they will nab you for it with or without evidence.It is the same in this case... They want to make paedophilia a thought crime and thus if you are associated with it by anyone then you are breaking a law...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354056</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260206100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, Mark Hecht needs to learn how to read.  Justice Morris Fish said the law "makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences." and "[facilitating] could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of."</p><p>Jumping on a video game forum and randomly chatting with a minor about their favorite WoW quest isn't going to get you in trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , Mark Hecht needs to learn how to read .
Justice Morris Fish said the law " makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences .
" and " [ facilitating ] could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of .
" Jumping on a video game forum and randomly chatting with a minor about their favorite WoW quest is n't going to get you in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, Mark Hecht needs to learn how to read.
Justice Morris Fish said the law "makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences.
" and "[facilitating] could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.
"Jumping on a video game forum and randomly chatting with a minor about their favorite WoW quest isn't going to get you in trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353078</id>
	<title>Re:Take the full step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260201900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but then who will post on slashdot???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but then who will post on slashdot ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but then who will post on slashdot??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355268</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260211200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It seems I wasn't paranoid at all. There really are people out there who think that if an adult says "Hi" to a kid they don't know, said adult must be up to no good.</p><p>Sad.</p><p>Really, really sad.</p></div></blockquote><p>I remember when I was five or six, my parents dropped me off at school, seemingly unaware that the support staff were on strike, and the teachers wouldn't cross the picket line.  I was completely on my own, and scarred stiff and crying my eyes out, when this woman and her little boy came up to me and said "Come on, we'll take you to our house and get a hold of your parents."  It was probably one of the single most happy experiences in my life.  I went to their house, she made me lunch, I played with her son (who became my best friend) and a few hours later, my parents came and picked me up and thanked her very much for looking after me.</p><p>Do that now, and you're likely to get charged with luring a kid off school grounds.</p><p>Because of a few deviants (who have always been among us, it's not like child molestation started in 1995, and most molestations are by a relative or family friend anyways), this fundamental trust between adults and children has been severed.  We no longer are raised in a village, where any adult can temporarily take over a guardian role to assure a child's safety or welfare, or in some cases even punishment.  We are raised in houses that we treat like fortresses, and where everything beyond the front door is bubbling with evil, where every stranger or acquaintance is a danger to be protected against.  To help us in our increasing paranoia, we have the media, police, politicians and courts stoking and encouraging such feelings by exagerating beyond all reason the risks our children face.  The media I hold in special contempt because every time there's a child abduction anywhere in the Western fucking World, they put at the top headline, making things that usually happen hundreds or thousands of miles away feel like it happened down the street.  But the cops and politicians bear responsibility too, the former for using such things to grab ever larger amounts of money and threaten liberties, and the latter because instead of being a calming force, instead ride it all to the polls.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems I was n't paranoid at all .
There really are people out there who think that if an adult says " Hi " to a kid they do n't know , said adult must be up to no good.Sad.Really , really sad.I remember when I was five or six , my parents dropped me off at school , seemingly unaware that the support staff were on strike , and the teachers would n't cross the picket line .
I was completely on my own , and scarred stiff and crying my eyes out , when this woman and her little boy came up to me and said " Come on , we 'll take you to our house and get a hold of your parents .
" It was probably one of the single most happy experiences in my life .
I went to their house , she made me lunch , I played with her son ( who became my best friend ) and a few hours later , my parents came and picked me up and thanked her very much for looking after me.Do that now , and you 're likely to get charged with luring a kid off school grounds.Because of a few deviants ( who have always been among us , it 's not like child molestation started in 1995 , and most molestations are by a relative or family friend anyways ) , this fundamental trust between adults and children has been severed .
We no longer are raised in a village , where any adult can temporarily take over a guardian role to assure a child 's safety or welfare , or in some cases even punishment .
We are raised in houses that we treat like fortresses , and where everything beyond the front door is bubbling with evil , where every stranger or acquaintance is a danger to be protected against .
To help us in our increasing paranoia , we have the media , police , politicians and courts stoking and encouraging such feelings by exagerating beyond all reason the risks our children face .
The media I hold in special contempt because every time there 's a child abduction anywhere in the Western fucking World , they put at the top headline , making things that usually happen hundreds or thousands of miles away feel like it happened down the street .
But the cops and politicians bear responsibility too , the former for using such things to grab ever larger amounts of money and threaten liberties , and the latter because instead of being a calming force , instead ride it all to the polls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems I wasn't paranoid at all.
There really are people out there who think that if an adult says "Hi" to a kid they don't know, said adult must be up to no good.Sad.Really, really sad.I remember when I was five or six, my parents dropped me off at school, seemingly unaware that the support staff were on strike, and the teachers wouldn't cross the picket line.
I was completely on my own, and scarred stiff and crying my eyes out, when this woman and her little boy came up to me and said "Come on, we'll take you to our house and get a hold of your parents.
"  It was probably one of the single most happy experiences in my life.
I went to their house, she made me lunch, I played with her son (who became my best friend) and a few hours later, my parents came and picked me up and thanked her very much for looking after me.Do that now, and you're likely to get charged with luring a kid off school grounds.Because of a few deviants (who have always been among us, it's not like child molestation started in 1995, and most molestations are by a relative or family friend anyways), this fundamental trust between adults and children has been severed.
We no longer are raised in a village, where any adult can temporarily take over a guardian role to assure a child's safety or welfare, or in some cases even punishment.
We are raised in houses that we treat like fortresses, and where everything beyond the front door is bubbling with evil, where every stranger or acquaintance is a danger to be protected against.
To help us in our increasing paranoia, we have the media, police, politicians and courts stoking and encouraging such feelings by exagerating beyond all reason the risks our children face.
The media I hold in special contempt because every time there's a child abduction anywhere in the Western fucking World, they put at the top headline, making things that usually happen hundreds or thousands of miles away feel like it happened down the street.
But the cops and politicians bear responsibility too, the former for using such things to grab ever larger amounts of money and threaten liberties, and the latter because instead of being a calming force, instead ride it all to the polls.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358838</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260186420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was a teen, I regularly sought intellectual conversations.  I even joined Mensa when I was 14 and participated online in their chat groups - I made some great online friends, most of whom were in their 40s and 50s.  I lied and said I was 18 at first to get them over what I regarded as an "absurd barrier" - since most wouldn't willingly chat with a 14 year old (and to avoid creeps who wanted to talk BECAUSE i was 14), but I eventually came clean with all of them and I'm still friends with several, even though I'm in my 20s and at least one is in his mid-60s now.</p><p>The point being that there IS a legitimate value in it and the only thing that makes it questionable is the fact that PEOPLE LIKE YOU regard it as socially destructive or some such nonsense.</p><p>The way you worded your post is almost dripping with indignant self-satisfaction.  Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a teen , I regularly sought intellectual conversations .
I even joined Mensa when I was 14 and participated online in their chat groups - I made some great online friends , most of whom were in their 40s and 50s .
I lied and said I was 18 at first to get them over what I regarded as an " absurd barrier " - since most would n't willingly chat with a 14 year old ( and to avoid creeps who wanted to talk BECAUSE i was 14 ) , but I eventually came clean with all of them and I 'm still friends with several , even though I 'm in my 20s and at least one is in his mid-60s now.The point being that there IS a legitimate value in it and the only thing that makes it questionable is the fact that PEOPLE LIKE YOU regard it as socially destructive or some such nonsense.The way you worded your post is almost dripping with indignant self-satisfaction .
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a teen, I regularly sought intellectual conversations.
I even joined Mensa when I was 14 and participated online in their chat groups - I made some great online friends, most of whom were in their 40s and 50s.
I lied and said I was 18 at first to get them over what I regarded as an "absurd barrier" - since most wouldn't willingly chat with a 14 year old (and to avoid creeps who wanted to talk BECAUSE i was 14), but I eventually came clean with all of them and I'm still friends with several, even though I'm in my 20s and at least one is in his mid-60s now.The point being that there IS a legitimate value in it and the only thing that makes it questionable is the fact that PEOPLE LIKE YOU regard it as socially destructive or some such nonsense.The way you worded your post is almost dripping with indignant self-satisfaction.
Sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357254</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Bragador</author>
	<datestamp>1260177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually it's the other way around. The kids communicate with the adults to learn from them, or to invite them to play games if they need a giant monster or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually it 's the other way around .
The kids communicate with the adults to learn from them , or to invite them to play games if they need a giant monster or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually it's the other way around.
The kids communicate with the adults to learn from them, or to invite them to play games if they need a giant monster or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351920</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think you can use something logical like a game's rating or legal limits on consumption of alcohol to protect yourself then think again. Using logic against the "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children crowd" is fruitless. As soon as someone says children/under age/sexual content then you are done. No jury in the western world won't convict you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think you can use something logical like a game 's rating or legal limits on consumption of alcohol to protect yourself then think again .
Using logic against the " Wo n't someone PLEASE think of the children crowd " is fruitless .
As soon as someone says children/under age/sexual content then you are done .
No jury in the western world wo n't convict you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think you can use something logical like a game's rating or legal limits on consumption of alcohol to protect yourself then think again.
Using logic against the "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children crowd" is fruitless.
As soon as someone says children/under age/sexual content then you are done.
No jury in the western world won't convict you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353312</id>
	<title>Scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260202920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that scares me about this idea is that I'm old enough to have friends who have kids. From time to time, I talk to those kids -- both in person and on-line. There's nothing inappropriate going on and the parents like that I'm involved with their children. But this law would, in theory, allow people to bring down law enforcement against me for this. I don't know how many times I've received dirty looks from people who see me going to school plays or picking up someone else's kids from school, just because I'm not the parent. this law is really open to abuse and I can't see much good coming from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that scares me about this idea is that I 'm old enough to have friends who have kids .
From time to time , I talk to those kids -- both in person and on-line .
There 's nothing inappropriate going on and the parents like that I 'm involved with their children .
But this law would , in theory , allow people to bring down law enforcement against me for this .
I do n't know how many times I 've received dirty looks from people who see me going to school plays or picking up someone else 's kids from school , just because I 'm not the parent .
this law is really open to abuse and I ca n't see much good coming from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that scares me about this idea is that I'm old enough to have friends who have kids.
From time to time, I talk to those kids -- both in person and on-line.
There's nothing inappropriate going on and the parents like that I'm involved with their children.
But this law would, in theory, allow people to bring down law enforcement against me for this.
I don't know how many times I've received dirty looks from people who see me going to school plays or picking up someone else's kids from school, just because I'm not the parent.
this law is really open to abuse and I can't see much good coming from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351864</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352148</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260197580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A "child" is often defined (incorrectly) as someone below the age of 16-18 and an "adult" is often also (incorrectly) described as someone above the ages of 16-18. But even if you define a child as someone below the age of 11 do you then define a non-child as someone above the age of 11? So if a 12 year old talks to an 11 year old are they then put on the sex offenders register? Or a 17 y/o talking to a 16 y/o?</p><p>Also what happens if a child needs to talk to an adult and ask for advice? Like what if they're getting bullied at school? Abused at home? Or just want to talk to someone their own gender (in a single-parent household)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A " child " is often defined ( incorrectly ) as someone below the age of 16-18 and an " adult " is often also ( incorrectly ) described as someone above the ages of 16-18 .
But even if you define a child as someone below the age of 11 do you then define a non-child as someone above the age of 11 ?
So if a 12 year old talks to an 11 year old are they then put on the sex offenders register ?
Or a 17 y/o talking to a 16 y/o ? Also what happens if a child needs to talk to an adult and ask for advice ?
Like what if they 're getting bullied at school ?
Abused at home ?
Or just want to talk to someone their own gender ( in a single-parent household ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "child" is often defined (incorrectly) as someone below the age of 16-18 and an "adult" is often also (incorrectly) described as someone above the ages of 16-18.
But even if you define a child as someone below the age of 11 do you then define a non-child as someone above the age of 11?
So if a 12 year old talks to an 11 year old are they then put on the sex offenders register?
Or a 17 y/o talking to a 16 y/o?Also what happens if a child needs to talk to an adult and ask for advice?
Like what if they're getting bullied at school?
Abused at home?
Or just want to talk to someone their own gender (in a single-parent household)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355932</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260214380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent +10 Insightful.</p><p>Vague laws lead to overly-broad enforcement, period.  Yes, this law is not meant for Slashdot, but it's not hard to envision circumstances in which a Slashdot poster might find themselves in a shitload of trouble because of some obtuse thread involving a minor.</p><p>This is precisely what has happened with anti-child porn laws in the case sexting.  You get some "moral majority" prosecutor type with delusions of grandeur, and all of a sudden you have the criminalization of dumb kids sending nude pictures of each other.  It's precisely the reason why such laws can go insanely wrong.  It's not just dumb citizens a law must take into account, but dumb or malicious cops and prosecutors.  For a high court of any nation to send the message "Oh yeah, interpret this law very broadly, because, y'kmnow, the Tubes are dangerous!" is stupid and irresponsible in spades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent + 10 Insightful.Vague laws lead to overly-broad enforcement , period .
Yes , this law is not meant for Slashdot , but it 's not hard to envision circumstances in which a Slashdot poster might find themselves in a shitload of trouble because of some obtuse thread involving a minor.This is precisely what has happened with anti-child porn laws in the case sexting .
You get some " moral majority " prosecutor type with delusions of grandeur , and all of a sudden you have the criminalization of dumb kids sending nude pictures of each other .
It 's precisely the reason why such laws can go insanely wrong .
It 's not just dumb citizens a law must take into account , but dumb or malicious cops and prosecutors .
For a high court of any nation to send the message " Oh yeah , interpret this law very broadly , because , y'kmnow , the Tubes are dangerous !
" is stupid and irresponsible in spades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent +10 Insightful.Vague laws lead to overly-broad enforcement, period.
Yes, this law is not meant for Slashdot, but it's not hard to envision circumstances in which a Slashdot poster might find themselves in a shitload of trouble because of some obtuse thread involving a minor.This is precisely what has happened with anti-child porn laws in the case sexting.
You get some "moral majority" prosecutor type with delusions of grandeur, and all of a sudden you have the criminalization of dumb kids sending nude pictures of each other.
It's precisely the reason why such laws can go insanely wrong.
It's not just dumb citizens a law must take into account, but dumb or malicious cops and prosecutors.
For a high court of any nation to send the message "Oh yeah, interpret this law very broadly, because, y'kmnow, the Tubes are dangerous!
" is stupid and irresponsible in spades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353896</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1260205380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's suppose for a minute that this was technically feasible and that enforcement wasn't a problem (i.e. no adults on the "Kid Internet" pretending to be 14 year olds).  Those are big assumptions, but we'll ignore them for a second.  What is appropriate for a child of 6 years is different than what is appropriate for a child of 10 years or a "child" of 15 years.  (By that point, I'd argue, they aren't quite children anymore, but the "think of the children" movement loves to lumps them all together.)</p><p>So we would need to rate items on the Kid Internet by age appropriateness.  Failing that, we would need to create separate age-segmented Internets (e.g. "Birth to 2", "3 to 6", "7 to 10", "11 to 14") each with their own content and restrictions.  Of course, each child is different.  One six year old might be able to handle things that another won't be able to handle until they are eight.  So now we need to subdivide the Internet for each child.  Yes, it will be hideously expensive and complex but "think of the children!!!!!"</p><p>Then again, we could also use that wonderful filter called "the parents."  Parents could get involved with their kids (especially where the Internet is involved) and teach them not just how to be safe online, but what to do if an "unsafe" situation happens.  Maybe the child clicks a link they think is fine and gets a pornographic website.  An uninstructed child might not know what to do, but an instructed child will know to go right to his/her mother/father with the situation.</p><p>The Internet, like any large gathering of people, is not completely child-friendly.  You don't just toss your child into the mix, hope for the best, and scream bloody murder when something happens.  You slowly introduce your child to the situation, heavily supervised at first and slowly let them gain independence in the situation.  Unfortunately, too many parents don't want to be bothered and just want the government to "do something."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's suppose for a minute that this was technically feasible and that enforcement was n't a problem ( i.e .
no adults on the " Kid Internet " pretending to be 14 year olds ) .
Those are big assumptions , but we 'll ignore them for a second .
What is appropriate for a child of 6 years is different than what is appropriate for a child of 10 years or a " child " of 15 years .
( By that point , I 'd argue , they are n't quite children anymore , but the " think of the children " movement loves to lumps them all together .
) So we would need to rate items on the Kid Internet by age appropriateness .
Failing that , we would need to create separate age-segmented Internets ( e.g .
" Birth to 2 " , " 3 to 6 " , " 7 to 10 " , " 11 to 14 " ) each with their own content and restrictions .
Of course , each child is different .
One six year old might be able to handle things that another wo n't be able to handle until they are eight .
So now we need to subdivide the Internet for each child .
Yes , it will be hideously expensive and complex but " think of the children ! ! ! ! !
" Then again , we could also use that wonderful filter called " the parents .
" Parents could get involved with their kids ( especially where the Internet is involved ) and teach them not just how to be safe online , but what to do if an " unsafe " situation happens .
Maybe the child clicks a link they think is fine and gets a pornographic website .
An uninstructed child might not know what to do , but an instructed child will know to go right to his/her mother/father with the situation.The Internet , like any large gathering of people , is not completely child-friendly .
You do n't just toss your child into the mix , hope for the best , and scream bloody murder when something happens .
You slowly introduce your child to the situation , heavily supervised at first and slowly let them gain independence in the situation .
Unfortunately , too many parents do n't want to be bothered and just want the government to " do something .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's suppose for a minute that this was technically feasible and that enforcement wasn't a problem (i.e.
no adults on the "Kid Internet" pretending to be 14 year olds).
Those are big assumptions, but we'll ignore them for a second.
What is appropriate for a child of 6 years is different than what is appropriate for a child of 10 years or a "child" of 15 years.
(By that point, I'd argue, they aren't quite children anymore, but the "think of the children" movement loves to lumps them all together.
)So we would need to rate items on the Kid Internet by age appropriateness.
Failing that, we would need to create separate age-segmented Internets (e.g.
"Birth to 2", "3 to 6", "7 to 10", "11 to 14") each with their own content and restrictions.
Of course, each child is different.
One six year old might be able to handle things that another won't be able to handle until they are eight.
So now we need to subdivide the Internet for each child.
Yes, it will be hideously expensive and complex but "think of the children!!!!!
"Then again, we could also use that wonderful filter called "the parents.
"  Parents could get involved with their kids (especially where the Internet is involved) and teach them not just how to be safe online, but what to do if an "unsafe" situation happens.
Maybe the child clicks a link they think is fine and gets a pornographic website.
An uninstructed child might not know what to do, but an instructed child will know to go right to his/her mother/father with the situation.The Internet, like any large gathering of people, is not completely child-friendly.
You don't just toss your child into the mix, hope for the best, and scream bloody murder when something happens.
You slowly introduce your child to the situation, heavily supervised at first and slowly let them gain independence in the situation.
Unfortunately, too many parents don't want to be bothered and just want the government to "do something.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357038</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260176520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original trial judge didn't think the defendant's behaviour was the target of the law.  Turns out that applying the literal letter of the law was "too narrow", so now it applies to a whole range of things that didn't used to be its targets.</p><p>Who knows what will be the next thing to be retroactively made into its target?  Are you a member of the Canadian Supreme Court, that you speak with such certainty?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original trial judge did n't think the defendant 's behaviour was the target of the law .
Turns out that applying the literal letter of the law was " too narrow " , so now it applies to a whole range of things that did n't used to be its targets.Who knows what will be the next thing to be retroactively made into its target ?
Are you a member of the Canadian Supreme Court , that you speak with such certainty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original trial judge didn't think the defendant's behaviour was the target of the law.
Turns out that applying the literal letter of the law was "too narrow", so now it applies to a whole range of things that didn't used to be its targets.Who knows what will be the next thing to be retroactively made into its target?
Are you a member of the Canadian Supreme Court, that you speak with such certainty?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357024</id>
	<title>Mentoring banned</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260176520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime," he said.</p></div><p>So, mentoring, by virtue of tending to establish a bond of trust that <i>could</i> be abused by a bad person, is now banned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you 're an adult and if you 're having conversations with a child on the Internet , be warned because even if your conversations are n't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child , what you 're doing is potentially a crime , " he said.So , mentoring , by virtue of tending to establish a bond of trust that could be abused by a bad person , is now banned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime," he said.So, mentoring, by virtue of tending to establish a bond of trust that could be abused by a bad person, is now banned.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353186</id>
	<title>Re:Take the full step</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1260202380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should ban children entirely.</p><p>After delivery the baby is taken to a secure facility where it cannot do harm to society and is then only released after 21 years. Anyone outside of the secure facility under the age of 21 (who is not currently being transported directly to a secure facility) should be shot on sight to prevent their mere presence from endangering society.</p><p>This way there will be no children for lawmakers to think of and the children will have 21 years all nice and protected from the evil scary real world. Win-win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should ban children entirely.After delivery the baby is taken to a secure facility where it can not do harm to society and is then only released after 21 years .
Anyone outside of the secure facility under the age of 21 ( who is not currently being transported directly to a secure facility ) should be shot on sight to prevent their mere presence from endangering society.This way there will be no children for lawmakers to think of and the children will have 21 years all nice and protected from the evil scary real world .
Win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should ban children entirely.After delivery the baby is taken to a secure facility where it cannot do harm to society and is then only released after 21 years.
Anyone outside of the secure facility under the age of 21 (who is not currently being transported directly to a secure facility) should be shot on sight to prevent their mere presence from endangering society.This way there will be no children for lawmakers to think of and the children will have 21 years all nice and protected from the evil scary real world.
Win-win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356276</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1260216060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet here we are in 2009, and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week...</p></div><p>How is having a picture on your phone equivalent to posting on the internet?  And if they are posting underage photos on the net, then yes they should get into trouble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet here we are in 2009 , and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week...How is having a picture on your phone equivalent to posting on the internet ?
And if they are posting underage photos on the net , then yes they should get into trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet here we are in 2009, and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week...How is having a picture on your phone equivalent to posting on the internet?
And if they are posting underage photos on the net, then yes they should get into trouble.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353552</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>computational super</author>
	<datestamp>1260204000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm - I remember when CP laws started to go overboard, seeing people like the OP say something like, "You know, as vague as these laws are, someday, some teenage girl is going to take a picture of herself and post it on the internet and get arrested for peddling CP."  People like you said, "Teenage girls are not the target of the law and you know it.  Don't blow this up into something more than it is."  Yet here we are in 2009, and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm - I remember when CP laws started to go overboard , seeing people like the OP say something like , " You know , as vague as these laws are , someday , some teenage girl is going to take a picture of herself and post it on the internet and get arrested for peddling CP .
" People like you said , " Teenage girls are not the target of the law and you know it .
Do n't blow this up into something more than it is .
" Yet here we are in 2009 , and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm - I remember when CP laws started to go overboard, seeing people like the OP say something like, "You know, as vague as these laws are, someday, some teenage girl is going to take a picture of herself and post it on the internet and get arrested for peddling CP.
"  People like you said, "Teenage girls are not the target of the law and you know it.
Don't blow this up into something more than it is.
"  Yet here we are in 2009, and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352710</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260199980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole thing is getting out of control. First of all, only a tiny percentage of child abuse happens through the Internet. Even kids are smart enough to recognize that it's not a good idea to meet up with some random person they met in a chat room -- most (somewhere in the neighborhood of 95\%) child abuse happens at the hands of family members and close family friends. Of the remaining 5\%, very little is facilitated by the Internet. This stuff is certainly bad, but it seems horrifyingly misguided to be writing specific legislation aimed at stomping out this tiny bastion of crime -- particularly when the inevitable collateral damage is considered.<br> <br>

While we are on the terrorism thing -- I would like to point out that we would be better off passing anti-bee legislation, as significantly more people are killed by bees than terrorists. Again, the whole thing seems completely absurd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole thing is getting out of control .
First of all , only a tiny percentage of child abuse happens through the Internet .
Even kids are smart enough to recognize that it 's not a good idea to meet up with some random person they met in a chat room -- most ( somewhere in the neighborhood of 95 \ % ) child abuse happens at the hands of family members and close family friends .
Of the remaining 5 \ % , very little is facilitated by the Internet .
This stuff is certainly bad , but it seems horrifyingly misguided to be writing specific legislation aimed at stomping out this tiny bastion of crime -- particularly when the inevitable collateral damage is considered .
While we are on the terrorism thing -- I would like to point out that we would be better off passing anti-bee legislation , as significantly more people are killed by bees than terrorists .
Again , the whole thing seems completely absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole thing is getting out of control.
First of all, only a tiny percentage of child abuse happens through the Internet.
Even kids are smart enough to recognize that it's not a good idea to meet up with some random person they met in a chat room -- most (somewhere in the neighborhood of 95\%) child abuse happens at the hands of family members and close family friends.
Of the remaining 5\%, very little is facilitated by the Internet.
This stuff is certainly bad, but it seems horrifyingly misguided to be writing specific legislation aimed at stomping out this tiny bastion of crime -- particularly when the inevitable collateral damage is considered.
While we are on the terrorism thing -- I would like to point out that we would be better off passing anti-bee legislation, as significantly more people are killed by bees than terrorists.
Again, the whole thing seems completely absurd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351692</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Ipeunipig</author>
	<datestamp>1260195300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this include forums and the like?  I didn't see anything defining what a conversation is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this include forums and the like ?
I did n't see anything defining what a conversation is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this include forums and the like?
I didn't see anything defining what a conversation is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352748</id>
	<title>Re:More at 11.</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1260200100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point we should probably just keep all children in locked boxes until they reach 18.  Not for <i>their</i> protection, but for <i>ours</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point we should probably just keep all children in locked boxes until they reach 18 .
Not for their protection , but for ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point we should probably just keep all children in locked boxes until they reach 18.
Not for their protection, but for ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356432</id>
	<title>Re:go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1260216900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Racism is born from baser impulses, the desire to keep one's line intact.  Those that look radically different from you are usually considered threats at first glance. It is only our reasoning mind that calms these fears. Saying racism is unnatural ignores the reality of the underlying logic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Racism is born from baser impulses , the desire to keep one 's line intact .
Those that look radically different from you are usually considered threats at first glance .
It is only our reasoning mind that calms these fears .
Saying racism is unnatural ignores the reality of the underlying logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Racism is born from baser impulses, the desire to keep one's line intact.
Those that look radically different from you are usually considered threats at first glance.
It is only our reasoning mind that calms these fears.
Saying racism is unnatural ignores the reality of the underlying logic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352322</id>
	<title>Re:Take the full step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260198300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Banning kids from the internet is akin to banning kids from books and toys. I say we ban the "think of the children" wankers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Banning kids from the internet is akin to banning kids from books and toys .
I say we ban the " think of the children " wankers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banning kids from the internet is akin to banning kids from books and toys.
I say we ban the "think of the children" wankers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353342</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's your problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... according to the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's your problem ... according to the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's your problem ... according to the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352916</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>codegen</author>
	<datestamp>1260201060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is when the person is charged a second time for the same offense. This is a re-trial on the same charges.The prosecutors cannot simply retry, they have to convince an appeals court that an error of law (not of fact) was made by the trial judge in the first case.  Similarly in the case of a guilty verdict, the defense can try to convince the appeals court that an error was made.  Inmost cases a retrial is very rarely granted. In general, second trials have less success at convictions than the first trial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not double jeopardy .
Double jeopardy is when the person is charged a second time for the same offense .
This is a re-trial on the same charges.The prosecutors can not simply retry , they have to convince an appeals court that an error of law ( not of fact ) was made by the trial judge in the first case .
Similarly in the case of a guilty verdict , the defense can try to convince the appeals court that an error was made .
Inmost cases a retrial is very rarely granted .
In general , second trials have less success at convictions than the first trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy is when the person is charged a second time for the same offense.
This is a re-trial on the same charges.The prosecutors cannot simply retry, they have to convince an appeals court that an error of law (not of fact) was made by the trial judge in the first case.
Similarly in the case of a guilty verdict, the defense can try to convince the appeals court that an error was made.
Inmost cases a retrial is very rarely granted.
In general, second trials have less success at convictions than the first trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353572</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1260204060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An adult doesn't "need" to communicate with a child, but I think you're ignoring the gazillions of positive interactions a child can have with adults that aren't related to them.</p><p>Scenario: A 10-12 year-old who is interested in computers starts creating a real website for the fun of it. They want some dynamic content, so they start asking around on some forums about good tools to do that. Would you rather that (a) all the adults who can help the kid out refuse to respond for fear of prosecution, or (b) work with the kid to help them figure out the best tools they can use that will teach them something, point them to resources on Javascript, etc?</p><p>Scenario: A teenager who is really upset about a breakup starts making comments online that indicate that they may be suicidal. Would you rather that (a) all the adults on the forum refuse to respond for fear of prosecution, or (b) adults direct the teenager to suicide prevention resources?</p><p>Kids can and will express themselves differently to adults who aren't their parents, and those adults can often offer critical help to those kids. Just because 0.0001\% of adults online will do bad stuff to kids doesn't mean the other 99.999\% should be cut off from those kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An adult does n't " need " to communicate with a child , but I think you 're ignoring the gazillions of positive interactions a child can have with adults that are n't related to them.Scenario : A 10-12 year-old who is interested in computers starts creating a real website for the fun of it .
They want some dynamic content , so they start asking around on some forums about good tools to do that .
Would you rather that ( a ) all the adults who can help the kid out refuse to respond for fear of prosecution , or ( b ) work with the kid to help them figure out the best tools they can use that will teach them something , point them to resources on Javascript , etc ? Scenario : A teenager who is really upset about a breakup starts making comments online that indicate that they may be suicidal .
Would you rather that ( a ) all the adults on the forum refuse to respond for fear of prosecution , or ( b ) adults direct the teenager to suicide prevention resources ? Kids can and will express themselves differently to adults who are n't their parents , and those adults can often offer critical help to those kids .
Just because 0.0001 \ % of adults online will do bad stuff to kids does n't mean the other 99.999 \ % should be cut off from those kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An adult doesn't "need" to communicate with a child, but I think you're ignoring the gazillions of positive interactions a child can have with adults that aren't related to them.Scenario: A 10-12 year-old who is interested in computers starts creating a real website for the fun of it.
They want some dynamic content, so they start asking around on some forums about good tools to do that.
Would you rather that (a) all the adults who can help the kid out refuse to respond for fear of prosecution, or (b) work with the kid to help them figure out the best tools they can use that will teach them something, point them to resources on Javascript, etc?Scenario: A teenager who is really upset about a breakup starts making comments online that indicate that they may be suicidal.
Would you rather that (a) all the adults on the forum refuse to respond for fear of prosecution, or (b) adults direct the teenager to suicide prevention resources?Kids can and will express themselves differently to adults who aren't their parents, and those adults can often offer critical help to those kids.
Just because 0.0001\% of adults online will do bad stuff to kids doesn't mean the other 99.999\% should be cut off from those kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354272</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260207060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to Canada. Iron fist in a velvet glove. Corruption under pure white snow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to Canada .
Iron fist in a velvet glove .
Corruption under pure white snow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to Canada.
Iron fist in a velvet glove.
Corruption under pure white snow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352834</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260200580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>wow, you must be so proud of yourself.  my children.. blah blah blah blah...<br> <br>

my children used to rape your children in school but they seem to have grown out of it now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow , you must be so proud of yourself .
my children.. blah blah blah blah.. . my children used to rape your children in school but they seem to have grown out of it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow, you must be so proud of yourself.
my children.. blah blah blah blah... 

my children used to rape your children in school but they seem to have grown out of it now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352446</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1260198780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sorry, but talking to someone (anyone) is not illegal in itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you need to choose a different word, because several forms of speech very clearly <em>are</em> "illegal" in many jurisdictions.  Saying it ain't so doesn't alter that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but talking to someone ( anyone ) is not illegal in itself.I think you need to choose a different word , because several forms of speech very clearly are " illegal " in many jurisdictions .
Saying it ai n't so does n't alter that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but talking to someone (anyone) is not illegal in itself.I think you need to choose a different word, because several forms of speech very clearly are "illegal" in many jurisdictions.
Saying it ain't so doesn't alter that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352002</id>
	<title>No Children on the Internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a better idea. Minors of any age simply cannot use the Internet. Then I can safely assume that everyone is an adult, and all of these "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" laws can just go away. After all, <i>think of the children</i>, the Internet is full of nothing but perverts anyways, right?</p><p>With a law THAT ambiguous, I'm sure that every single person will at some point be branded some kind of predator. This is ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a better idea .
Minors of any age simply can not use the Internet .
Then I can safely assume that everyone is an adult , and all of these " BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN ! ! !
" laws can just go away .
After all , think of the children , the Internet is full of nothing but perverts anyways , right ? With a law THAT ambiguous , I 'm sure that every single person will at some point be branded some kind of predator .
This is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a better idea.
Minors of any age simply cannot use the Internet.
Then I can safely assume that everyone is an adult, and all of these "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
" laws can just go away.
After all, think of the children, the Internet is full of nothing but perverts anyways, right?With a law THAT ambiguous, I'm sure that every single person will at some point be branded some kind of predator.
This is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351902</id>
	<title>A message</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to Canadas youth: Stop ruining the internet for us adults. Seriously, go fuck yours---------CARRIER LOST</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to Canadas youth : Stop ruining the internet for us adults .
Seriously , go fuck yours---------CARRIER LOST</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to Canadas youth: Stop ruining the internet for us adults.
Seriously, go fuck yours---------CARRIER LOST</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</id>
	<title>Back in the day</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1260197220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back before AOL violated their own TOS by monitoring private chats, back when IM was new, back when IRC was for nerds (It still is, right?), one of the things I, an adult, loved to do was talk to other people online.</p><p>Different races, different cultures, different ages, too, provided new perspectives on life.  Talking to a Californian and the O.J. case, talked to a German about the fall of the wall, talking to someone in South Africa about relationships, and even talking to kids about music (or anything else for which I found their fresh, sometimes naive perspective eye-opening) were activities I loved because they gave me a different way of looking at things.  I consider polite conversation with as many people who are as different from me as possible to be an essential part of the lifelong process of self-education that we should all relish.</p><p>Yes, that means I talked to kids online.</p><p>I don't do that any more.  I don't even try to talk to new people online anymore.  So many of the old haunts were slowly invaded by LEOs blundering their way through silly entrapment schemes ("Hi, I'm 14/f/California.  I love cheerleading and gymnastics.  Do you want to talk to me?  I've been having problems with my boyfriend cuz he wants to sex me and I'd like to know what an older guy thinks" was typical, although I didn't misspell nearly enough words.) that all the fun was sucked out of it.</p><p>Now, I talk on forums where the whole world can read what I say.  That way, no one can accuse me of grooming.  When I made the decision to eschew private conversations with strangers, I thought I was being too paranoid but withdrew, anyway, just to be on the safe side.</p><p>It seems I wasn't paranoid at all.  There really are people out there who think that if an adult says "Hi" to a kid they don't know, said adult must be up to no good.</p><p>Sad.</p><p>Really, really sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back before AOL violated their own TOS by monitoring private chats , back when IM was new , back when IRC was for nerds ( It still is , right ?
) , one of the things I , an adult , loved to do was talk to other people online.Different races , different cultures , different ages , too , provided new perspectives on life .
Talking to a Californian and the O.J .
case , talked to a German about the fall of the wall , talking to someone in South Africa about relationships , and even talking to kids about music ( or anything else for which I found their fresh , sometimes naive perspective eye-opening ) were activities I loved because they gave me a different way of looking at things .
I consider polite conversation with as many people who are as different from me as possible to be an essential part of the lifelong process of self-education that we should all relish.Yes , that means I talked to kids online.I do n't do that any more .
I do n't even try to talk to new people online anymore .
So many of the old haunts were slowly invaded by LEOs blundering their way through silly entrapment schemes ( " Hi , I 'm 14/f/California .
I love cheerleading and gymnastics .
Do you want to talk to me ?
I 've been having problems with my boyfriend cuz he wants to sex me and I 'd like to know what an older guy thinks " was typical , although I did n't misspell nearly enough words .
) that all the fun was sucked out of it.Now , I talk on forums where the whole world can read what I say .
That way , no one can accuse me of grooming .
When I made the decision to eschew private conversations with strangers , I thought I was being too paranoid but withdrew , anyway , just to be on the safe side.It seems I was n't paranoid at all .
There really are people out there who think that if an adult says " Hi " to a kid they do n't know , said adult must be up to no good.Sad.Really , really sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back before AOL violated their own TOS by monitoring private chats, back when IM was new, back when IRC was for nerds (It still is, right?
), one of the things I, an adult, loved to do was talk to other people online.Different races, different cultures, different ages, too, provided new perspectives on life.
Talking to a Californian and the O.J.
case, talked to a German about the fall of the wall, talking to someone in South Africa about relationships, and even talking to kids about music (or anything else for which I found their fresh, sometimes naive perspective eye-opening) were activities I loved because they gave me a different way of looking at things.
I consider polite conversation with as many people who are as different from me as possible to be an essential part of the lifelong process of self-education that we should all relish.Yes, that means I talked to kids online.I don't do that any more.
I don't even try to talk to new people online anymore.
So many of the old haunts were slowly invaded by LEOs blundering their way through silly entrapment schemes ("Hi, I'm 14/f/California.
I love cheerleading and gymnastics.
Do you want to talk to me?
I've been having problems with my boyfriend cuz he wants to sex me and I'd like to know what an older guy thinks" was typical, although I didn't misspell nearly enough words.
) that all the fun was sucked out of it.Now, I talk on forums where the whole world can read what I say.
That way, no one can accuse me of grooming.
When I made the decision to eschew private conversations with strangers, I thought I was being too paranoid but withdrew, anyway, just to be on the safe side.It seems I wasn't paranoid at all.
There really are people out there who think that if an adult says "Hi" to a kid they don't know, said adult must be up to no good.Sad.Really, really sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351926</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need a "get your damn kid off my internet" campaign.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a " get your damn kid off my internet " campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a "get your damn kid off my internet" campaign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356222</id>
	<title>The solution:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260215820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ban Canada!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ban Canada !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ban Canada!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352522</id>
	<title>Re:probably no need to worry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260199140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, that's a great law - the only time it gets used is to pursue personal vendettas and abuse the justice system. Did the Canucks borrow some of our Republicans for a weekend to come up with BS like this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , that 's a great law - the only time it gets used is to pursue personal vendettas and abuse the justice system .
Did the Canucks borrow some of our Republicans for a weekend to come up with BS like this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, that's a great law - the only time it gets used is to pursue personal vendettas and abuse the justice system.
Did the Canucks borrow some of our Republicans for a weekend to come up with BS like this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890</id>
	<title>It probably won't protect more children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in the UK the huge overreaction has spawned a child protection industry which, while making promotion opportunities for civil servants, has created a climate in which people will no longer intervene to stop children fighting or warn children about danger in case the children accuse the adults of "inappropriate behaviour".<p>A society which genuinely wanted to protect children would do things like reduce speed limits in built up areas to 10mph and imprison people who drive while talking on mobile phones - because the proponents of the legislation claim that any level of intrusion is justified if "a single child is saved".</p><p>Interestingly, the hysteria is driven by tabloid newspapers who, on other pages, will be moaning about the "Nanny State" - but this Canadian case seems to be about "the evil scum didn't commit an offence! We must create one so that in future similar evil scum can be charged with something!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the UK the huge overreaction has spawned a child protection industry which , while making promotion opportunities for civil servants , has created a climate in which people will no longer intervene to stop children fighting or warn children about danger in case the children accuse the adults of " inappropriate behaviour " .A society which genuinely wanted to protect children would do things like reduce speed limits in built up areas to 10mph and imprison people who drive while talking on mobile phones - because the proponents of the legislation claim that any level of intrusion is justified if " a single child is saved " .Interestingly , the hysteria is driven by tabloid newspapers who , on other pages , will be moaning about the " Nanny State " - but this Canadian case seems to be about " the evil scum did n't commit an offence !
We must create one so that in future similar evil scum can be charged with something !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the UK the huge overreaction has spawned a child protection industry which, while making promotion opportunities for civil servants, has created a climate in which people will no longer intervene to stop children fighting or warn children about danger in case the children accuse the adults of "inappropriate behaviour".A society which genuinely wanted to protect children would do things like reduce speed limits in built up areas to 10mph and imprison people who drive while talking on mobile phones - because the proponents of the legislation claim that any level of intrusion is justified if "a single child is saved".Interestingly, the hysteria is driven by tabloid newspapers who, on other pages, will be moaning about the "Nanny State" - but this Canadian case seems to be about "the evil scum didn't commit an offence!
We must create one so that in future similar evil scum can be charged with something!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352618</id>
	<title>Parents</title>
	<author>jointm1k</author>
	<datestamp>1260199560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get your god damn kids of my internet, or else I'll sue you for trying to lure me to talk to your children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get your god damn kids of my internet , or else I 'll sue you for trying to lure me to talk to your children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get your god damn kids of my internet, or else I'll sue you for trying to lure me to talk to your children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352854</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260200700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, too, have stopped trying to talk to people I don't already know. It's fucking depressing. There are just too many idiots and risks out there to bother. Every single time in the last year or so that I've been contacted by someone I didn't already know, I went completely stealth. In environments where I had to be accommodating to people I hadn't known for years, I did as little as possible and never engaged them as if they were anything except text or the occasional sound file.</p><p>The internet of the mid-to-late-90s was like an image with 16 bits of chroma resolution. With so much gray, it was easy not being black or white.</p><p>The MAFIAA, ACTA, and Governments worldwide are turning it bi-level, and it's a disgrace. Nobody cares. We're insignificant, and we're losing.</p><p>Hunter S. Thompson said something profound about 9/11 and its effects on American politics, but it's equally as relevant here: 'The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade Center burned will never know what they missed.' Children born today will never know what they missed. And they missed something worthwhile.</p><p>Ten, fifteen years ago I'd sometimes spend all day finding places and people I had never interacted with, and diving headfirst in. I learned more from those amazingly diverse communities than I have from anything else in my life. It truly was like some kind of renaissance, and I miss it every second of every day. My family and my mind are about the only things I wouldn't give to go back. While there may have been "less" to the internet back then, what was there made up for what we lack today, by and large. And I'm not that old, either. But I sure do feel it.</p><p>All that's dead now, of course. Jack Valenti stabbed it in the neck, the cops raided the funeral, an evangelical domestic terrorist stole the headstone, it decomposed, and the bones are in the process of turning to dust. Nowadays we fawn over iTunes and Wikipedia and count ourselves lucky that at least in the west the government doesn't ADMIT to being China, even though they are. Everyone's paranoid, like we're in some besieged city, brimming with spies, and if you're not careful the spies will kill you. Or the government will, for being near the spy. Or a bomb will fall on your house, and end it all before you know what happened. And when you're not thinking about these things, you think about the invasion that's around the corner. Your natural inclination might be to go on an orgiastic hedonistic frenzy to end all frenzies, but everyone else is mentally dead. Lump of horsemeat, etc.</p><p>I know I'm supposed to care about net neutrality, but I can't bring myself to give a shit. So, my ISP might start microtransactioning me to death and blocking swaths of the web? Big deal, they already overcharge me for shit service and one misclick can be fatal. What's there to lose anymore? Access to DRM'd content that'll break at the drop of a hat, and completely corporate censored 'mainstream' websites? Hell, even if they blocked SSH to the communal server I use, we'd probably just end up running it over the phone, while that still exists, and mailing each other DVDs, while they still allow private ownership of archival media. What do you need it for, anyway? After all, the cloud just works so quickly and so well, why not.</p><p>Fuck it all. They can have this fucking mess. Take your facebook, ad networks, media stores, and twitter and fucking choke on it.</p><p>Dear trolls who will flame me about 'hurf durf you're taking this shit too seriously obviously you're a predator of some kind' or 'hurf durf tell us about walking both ways in the snow': This law's concept is essentially the straw that broke my camel's back on the state of the internet, which has been stressed ever since the Napster shutdown. I'd ask you to look at things with an open mind, but it's pointless. I'm typing words for no reason except to soothe my useless ego. Ignore me, I'm pointless. But, the thing is, so are you.</p><p>AC because every letter you type under a name you gave yourself is at risk of datamining. This is risky enough. I'm tired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , too , have stopped trying to talk to people I do n't already know .
It 's fucking depressing .
There are just too many idiots and risks out there to bother .
Every single time in the last year or so that I 've been contacted by someone I did n't already know , I went completely stealth .
In environments where I had to be accommodating to people I had n't known for years , I did as little as possible and never engaged them as if they were anything except text or the occasional sound file.The internet of the mid-to-late-90s was like an image with 16 bits of chroma resolution .
With so much gray , it was easy not being black or white.The MAFIAA , ACTA , and Governments worldwide are turning it bi-level , and it 's a disgrace .
Nobody cares .
We 're insignificant , and we 're losing.Hunter S. Thompson said something profound about 9/11 and its effects on American politics , but it 's equally as relevant here : 'The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade Center burned will never know what they missed .
' Children born today will never know what they missed .
And they missed something worthwhile.Ten , fifteen years ago I 'd sometimes spend all day finding places and people I had never interacted with , and diving headfirst in .
I learned more from those amazingly diverse communities than I have from anything else in my life .
It truly was like some kind of renaissance , and I miss it every second of every day .
My family and my mind are about the only things I would n't give to go back .
While there may have been " less " to the internet back then , what was there made up for what we lack today , by and large .
And I 'm not that old , either .
But I sure do feel it.All that 's dead now , of course .
Jack Valenti stabbed it in the neck , the cops raided the funeral , an evangelical domestic terrorist stole the headstone , it decomposed , and the bones are in the process of turning to dust .
Nowadays we fawn over iTunes and Wikipedia and count ourselves lucky that at least in the west the government does n't ADMIT to being China , even though they are .
Everyone 's paranoid , like we 're in some besieged city , brimming with spies , and if you 're not careful the spies will kill you .
Or the government will , for being near the spy .
Or a bomb will fall on your house , and end it all before you know what happened .
And when you 're not thinking about these things , you think about the invasion that 's around the corner .
Your natural inclination might be to go on an orgiastic hedonistic frenzy to end all frenzies , but everyone else is mentally dead .
Lump of horsemeat , etc.I know I 'm supposed to care about net neutrality , but I ca n't bring myself to give a shit .
So , my ISP might start microtransactioning me to death and blocking swaths of the web ?
Big deal , they already overcharge me for shit service and one misclick can be fatal .
What 's there to lose anymore ?
Access to DRM 'd content that 'll break at the drop of a hat , and completely corporate censored 'mainstream ' websites ?
Hell , even if they blocked SSH to the communal server I use , we 'd probably just end up running it over the phone , while that still exists , and mailing each other DVDs , while they still allow private ownership of archival media .
What do you need it for , anyway ?
After all , the cloud just works so quickly and so well , why not.Fuck it all .
They can have this fucking mess .
Take your facebook , ad networks , media stores , and twitter and fucking choke on it.Dear trolls who will flame me about 'hurf durf you 're taking this shit too seriously obviously you 're a predator of some kind ' or 'hurf durf tell us about walking both ways in the snow ' : This law 's concept is essentially the straw that broke my camel 's back on the state of the internet , which has been stressed ever since the Napster shutdown .
I 'd ask you to look at things with an open mind , but it 's pointless .
I 'm typing words for no reason except to soothe my useless ego .
Ignore me , I 'm pointless .
But , the thing is , so are you.AC because every letter you type under a name you gave yourself is at risk of datamining .
This is risky enough .
I 'm tired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, too, have stopped trying to talk to people I don't already know.
It's fucking depressing.
There are just too many idiots and risks out there to bother.
Every single time in the last year or so that I've been contacted by someone I didn't already know, I went completely stealth.
In environments where I had to be accommodating to people I hadn't known for years, I did as little as possible and never engaged them as if they were anything except text or the occasional sound file.The internet of the mid-to-late-90s was like an image with 16 bits of chroma resolution.
With so much gray, it was easy not being black or white.The MAFIAA, ACTA, and Governments worldwide are turning it bi-level, and it's a disgrace.
Nobody cares.
We're insignificant, and we're losing.Hunter S. Thompson said something profound about 9/11 and its effects on American politics, but it's equally as relevant here: 'The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade Center burned will never know what they missed.
' Children born today will never know what they missed.
And they missed something worthwhile.Ten, fifteen years ago I'd sometimes spend all day finding places and people I had never interacted with, and diving headfirst in.
I learned more from those amazingly diverse communities than I have from anything else in my life.
It truly was like some kind of renaissance, and I miss it every second of every day.
My family and my mind are about the only things I wouldn't give to go back.
While there may have been "less" to the internet back then, what was there made up for what we lack today, by and large.
And I'm not that old, either.
But I sure do feel it.All that's dead now, of course.
Jack Valenti stabbed it in the neck, the cops raided the funeral, an evangelical domestic terrorist stole the headstone, it decomposed, and the bones are in the process of turning to dust.
Nowadays we fawn over iTunes and Wikipedia and count ourselves lucky that at least in the west the government doesn't ADMIT to being China, even though they are.
Everyone's paranoid, like we're in some besieged city, brimming with spies, and if you're not careful the spies will kill you.
Or the government will, for being near the spy.
Or a bomb will fall on your house, and end it all before you know what happened.
And when you're not thinking about these things, you think about the invasion that's around the corner.
Your natural inclination might be to go on an orgiastic hedonistic frenzy to end all frenzies, but everyone else is mentally dead.
Lump of horsemeat, etc.I know I'm supposed to care about net neutrality, but I can't bring myself to give a shit.
So, my ISP might start microtransactioning me to death and blocking swaths of the web?
Big deal, they already overcharge me for shit service and one misclick can be fatal.
What's there to lose anymore?
Access to DRM'd content that'll break at the drop of a hat, and completely corporate censored 'mainstream' websites?
Hell, even if they blocked SSH to the communal server I use, we'd probably just end up running it over the phone, while that still exists, and mailing each other DVDs, while they still allow private ownership of archival media.
What do you need it for, anyway?
After all, the cloud just works so quickly and so well, why not.Fuck it all.
They can have this fucking mess.
Take your facebook, ad networks, media stores, and twitter and fucking choke on it.Dear trolls who will flame me about 'hurf durf you're taking this shit too seriously obviously you're a predator of some kind' or 'hurf durf tell us about walking both ways in the snow': This law's concept is essentially the straw that broke my camel's back on the state of the internet, which has been stressed ever since the Napster shutdown.
I'd ask you to look at things with an open mind, but it's pointless.
I'm typing words for no reason except to soothe my useless ego.
Ignore me, I'm pointless.
But, the thing is, so are you.AC because every letter you type under a name you gave yourself is at risk of datamining.
This is risky enough.
I'm tired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352012</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because child are people, not objects to be sheltered and cut off from the outside world until they reach a magical age when they're shoved outside.</p><p>What the fuck is wrong with how you see the world that you can actually pose the question "Why would an adult talk to another child?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because child are people , not objects to be sheltered and cut off from the outside world until they reach a magical age when they 're shoved outside.What the fuck is wrong with how you see the world that you can actually pose the question " Why would an adult talk to another child ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because child are people, not objects to be sheltered and cut off from the outside world until they reach a magical age when they're shoved outside.What the fuck is wrong with how you see the world that you can actually pose the question "Why would an adult talk to another child?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352352</id>
	<title>Re:More at 11.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1260198420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But surely it's the reverse? Children can talk as much as they like, and now adults aren't allowed to talk to them - even to tell them "Children should be seen and not heard"...</p><p>Next up, children telling "Adults should be seen and not heard".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But surely it 's the reverse ?
Children can talk as much as they like , and now adults are n't allowed to talk to them - even to tell them " Children should be seen and not heard " ...Next up , children telling " Adults should be seen and not heard " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But surely it's the reverse?
Children can talk as much as they like, and now adults aren't allowed to talk to them - even to tell them "Children should be seen and not heard"...Next up, children telling "Adults should be seen and not heard".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355152</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1260210540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't know, there is no Mens Rea, you cannot be convicted.  If you ask an 18 year old on craigslist to meet for sex, it's not illegal if a 13 year old posted it, because you have no way of knowing at all.  Now, if you actually have sex with her, she better look damn old so you can convince a jury you thought she looked 18!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't know , there is no Mens Rea , you can not be convicted .
If you ask an 18 year old on craigslist to meet for sex , it 's not illegal if a 13 year old posted it , because you have no way of knowing at all .
Now , if you actually have sex with her , she better look damn old so you can convince a jury you thought she looked 18 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't know, there is no Mens Rea, you cannot be convicted.
If you ask an 18 year old on craigslist to meet for sex, it's not illegal if a 13 year old posted it, because you have no way of knowing at all.
Now, if you actually have sex with her, she better look damn old so you can convince a jury you thought she looked 18!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354046</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260206040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WTF Canadians?  I thought you people were nice and sensible!?</p></div><p>WTF indeed, this law is rather confusing and will probably affect me, after all, I'm a Canadian Citizen and for all I know you could be under-aged. If you don't see any more posts from me you know what happened.</p><p>As for Nice - have you seen our Hockey Team?</p><p>As for Sensible - Our milk comes in bags!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF Canadians ?
I thought you people were nice and sensible !
? WTF indeed , this law is rather confusing and will probably affect me , after all , I 'm a Canadian Citizen and for all I know you could be under-aged .
If you do n't see any more posts from me you know what happened.As for Nice - have you seen our Hockey Team ? As for Sensible - Our milk comes in bags !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF Canadians?
I thought you people were nice and sensible!
?WTF indeed, this law is rather confusing and will probably affect me, after all, I'm a Canadian Citizen and for all I know you could be under-aged.
If you don't see any more posts from me you know what happened.As for Nice - have you seen our Hockey Team?As for Sensible - Our milk comes in bags!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352010</id>
	<title>I hope nobody here..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure hope nobody here is underage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure hope nobody here is underage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure hope nobody here is underage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can see it now, people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like "suck my balls"</p></div></blockquote><p>

Is that something you're likely to say?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see it now , people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like " suck my balls " Is that something you 're likely to say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see it now, people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like "suck my balls"

Is that something you're likely to say?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355614</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1260212820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Retrials are allowed if there were substantial mistakes made during the trial.  In this case, the judge gave incorrect jury instruction with regards to the meaning of the law.  Specifically, he told them that because the accused didn't actually have sex with a 12 year old, they had to find him not guilty, since without the act, there was no way to prove that he intended to follow through on his stated desire to have sex with her.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Retrials are allowed if there were substantial mistakes made during the trial .
In this case , the judge gave incorrect jury instruction with regards to the meaning of the law .
Specifically , he told them that because the accused did n't actually have sex with a 12 year old , they had to find him not guilty , since without the act , there was no way to prove that he intended to follow through on his stated desire to have sex with her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Retrials are allowed if there were substantial mistakes made during the trial.
In this case, the judge gave incorrect jury instruction with regards to the meaning of the law.
Specifically, he told them that because the accused didn't actually have sex with a 12 year old, they had to find him not guilty, since without the act, there was no way to prove that he intended to follow through on his stated desire to have sex with her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30372606</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>daniel\_newby</author>
	<datestamp>1260278880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long before the US enacts the "me too" version of this law, potentially exposing us to criminal/civil liability just for letting this kid into our lives?</p></div><p>Never. "Congress shall make no law<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". This was tested when the Federal courts struck down the U.S. Child Online Protection Act (COPA).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before the US enacts the " me too " version of this law , potentially exposing us to criminal/civil liability just for letting this kid into our lives ? Never .
" Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press " .
This was tested when the Federal courts struck down the U.S. Child Online Protection Act ( COPA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before the US enacts the "me too" version of this law, potentially exposing us to criminal/civil liability just for letting this kid into our lives?Never.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
This was tested when the Federal courts struck down the U.S. Child Online Protection Act (COPA).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</id>
	<title>More at 11.</title>
	<author>Yamata no Orochi</author>
	<datestamp>1260195480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking to children online ruled illegal;</p><p>A worldwide shift back to the "Seen, but not heard," philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking to children online ruled illegal ; A worldwide shift back to the " Seen , but not heard , " philosophy ruins childhood for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking to children online ruled illegal;A worldwide shift back to the "Seen, but not heard," philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353498</id>
	<title>Re:I have children</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1260203640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have two kids and this is one of those well intentioned potentially good laws. I would want my kids protected as much as possible while they are online, and in "real" life.</p></div><p>I have four children, aged 10 to 21. You know how I protect(ed) them? By limiting and monitoring their Internet usage. Our oldest didn't start to use the Internet freely until she was 15 and had shown herself to be sufficiently responsible. The younger two still don't get to go online, ever, unless mom or dad are around and keeping an eye on things.</p><p>You want to protect your kids? Great, go do it. Leave the rest of us the fuck alone and stop pushing your responsibility on other people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two kids and this is one of those well intentioned potentially good laws .
I would want my kids protected as much as possible while they are online , and in " real " life.I have four children , aged 10 to 21 .
You know how I protect ( ed ) them ?
By limiting and monitoring their Internet usage .
Our oldest did n't start to use the Internet freely until she was 15 and had shown herself to be sufficiently responsible .
The younger two still do n't get to go online , ever , unless mom or dad are around and keeping an eye on things.You want to protect your kids ?
Great , go do it .
Leave the rest of us the fuck alone and stop pushing your responsibility on other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two kids and this is one of those well intentioned potentially good laws.
I would want my kids protected as much as possible while they are online, and in "real" life.I have four children, aged 10 to 21.
You know how I protect(ed) them?
By limiting and monitoring their Internet usage.
Our oldest didn't start to use the Internet freely until she was 15 and had shown herself to be sufficiently responsible.
The younger two still don't get to go online, ever, unless mom or dad are around and keeping an eye on things.You want to protect your kids?
Great, go do it.
Leave the rest of us the fuck alone and stop pushing your responsibility on other people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351854</id>
	<title>This doesn't sound needlessly vague.</title>
	<author>Llamahand</author>
	<datestamp>1260196080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can just see the disaster that is "having an inappropriate conversation" being put to the test. <br>
<br>
Defendant "Your honor, all I was doing was talking about which blue cheese tastes best as a pasta sauce." <br>
<br>
Judge "Well, that may be the case, but you were on a technical forum.  2 years in Federal Pound You in the Ass Prison."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can just see the disaster that is " having an inappropriate conversation " being put to the test .
Defendant " Your honor , all I was doing was talking about which blue cheese tastes best as a pasta sauce .
" Judge " Well , that may be the case , but you were on a technical forum .
2 years in Federal Pound You in the Ass Prison .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can just see the disaster that is "having an inappropriate conversation" being put to the test.
Defendant "Your honor, all I was doing was talking about which blue cheese tastes best as a pasta sauce.
" 

Judge "Well, that may be the case, but you were on a technical forum.
2 years in Federal Pound You in the Ass Prison.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352328</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1260198300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forums like this are not the target of the law and you know it.  Don't blow this up into something more than it is.  No one is going to be targeted on Slashdot regardless of age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forums like this are not the target of the law and you know it .
Do n't blow this up into something more than it is .
No one is going to be targeted on Slashdot regardless of age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forums like this are not the target of the law and you know it.
Don't blow this up into something more than it is.
No one is going to be targeted on Slashdot regardless of age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352370</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260198480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I totally agree with this. Total isolation between the nets.</p><p>That way, the children can grow up thinking how unfathomably retarded it all is and become well-motivated free-informationists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I totally agree with this .
Total isolation between the nets.That way , the children can grow up thinking how unfathomably retarded it all is and become well-motivated free-informationists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I totally agree with this.
Total isolation between the nets.That way, the children can grow up thinking how unfathomably retarded it all is and become well-motivated free-informationists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352290</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>DigitalSorceress</author>
	<datestamp>1260198180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, this will probably be taken as a point for the other side, BUT:</p><p>In my WoW guid, we have a few members under the age of 18. Mostly, they're the kids of "real" members and their participation is a matter of humoring them. However, we've got at least one kid (14 at present) who is really quite mature for his age. Specifically, he's got three end-game geared characters, and he's capable of being a very effective main tank on what is currently some of the most difficult content in Warcraft.</p><p>(translation, this 14 year old kid plays his characters as well as any adult member, and better than some).</p><p>We've also got a Ventrillo server (voice chat) to help us communicate during raids and to coordinate other guild activities (as well as being a social space)</p><p>So, although you may disagree about the merits of a kid's participation in WoW, I can tell you that I've actually heard our raid leader (A Canadian citizen and ironically, an eighth grade teacher) ask this young raider if he's done his homework before a raid. In some ways, the majority of us adults treat him as a little brother most of the time, and as an equal colleague when raiding.</p><p>Where does that leave our raid leader? What about our other Canadian members? How long before the US enacts the "me too" version of this law, potentially exposing us to criminal/civil liability just for letting this kid into our lives?</p><p>Anyway, in answer to that question, there are many legitimate and wholly innocent reasons. I know that I interact with this particular kind IN SPITE OF HIS AGE, not because of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , this will probably be taken as a point for the other side , BUT : In my WoW guid , we have a few members under the age of 18 .
Mostly , they 're the kids of " real " members and their participation is a matter of humoring them .
However , we 've got at least one kid ( 14 at present ) who is really quite mature for his age .
Specifically , he 's got three end-game geared characters , and he 's capable of being a very effective main tank on what is currently some of the most difficult content in Warcraft .
( translation , this 14 year old kid plays his characters as well as any adult member , and better than some ) .We 've also got a Ventrillo server ( voice chat ) to help us communicate during raids and to coordinate other guild activities ( as well as being a social space ) So , although you may disagree about the merits of a kid 's participation in WoW , I can tell you that I 've actually heard our raid leader ( A Canadian citizen and ironically , an eighth grade teacher ) ask this young raider if he 's done his homework before a raid .
In some ways , the majority of us adults treat him as a little brother most of the time , and as an equal colleague when raiding.Where does that leave our raid leader ?
What about our other Canadian members ?
How long before the US enacts the " me too " version of this law , potentially exposing us to criminal/civil liability just for letting this kid into our lives ? Anyway , in answer to that question , there are many legitimate and wholly innocent reasons .
I know that I interact with this particular kind IN SPITE OF HIS AGE , not because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, this will probably be taken as a point for the other side, BUT:In my WoW guid, we have a few members under the age of 18.
Mostly, they're the kids of "real" members and their participation is a matter of humoring them.
However, we've got at least one kid (14 at present) who is really quite mature for his age.
Specifically, he's got three end-game geared characters, and he's capable of being a very effective main tank on what is currently some of the most difficult content in Warcraft.
(translation, this 14 year old kid plays his characters as well as any adult member, and better than some).We've also got a Ventrillo server (voice chat) to help us communicate during raids and to coordinate other guild activities (as well as being a social space)So, although you may disagree about the merits of a kid's participation in WoW, I can tell you that I've actually heard our raid leader (A Canadian citizen and ironically, an eighth grade teacher) ask this young raider if he's done his homework before a raid.
In some ways, the majority of us adults treat him as a little brother most of the time, and as an equal colleague when raiding.Where does that leave our raid leader?
What about our other Canadian members?
How long before the US enacts the "me too" version of this law, potentially exposing us to criminal/civil liability just for letting this kid into our lives?Anyway, in answer to that question, there are many legitimate and wholly innocent reasons.
I know that I interact with this particular kind IN SPITE OF HIS AGE, not because of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352158</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260197640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Discussion forums are not intended to be restricted areas. If this "child" can participate in political debate or discussions of knowledge, art, games, etc., then there is no reason to lock them out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Discussion forums are not intended to be restricted areas .
If this " child " can participate in political debate or discussions of knowledge , art , games , etc. , then there is no reason to lock them out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Discussion forums are not intended to be restricted areas.
If this "child" can participate in political debate or discussions of knowledge, art, games, etc., then there is no reason to lock them out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356490</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260217260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adults talking to children is not the only issue.  This would necessarily cover children talking to adults.<br>A teacher, tutor or babysitter could all get snagged by this law.<br>Adults are an information resource for kids - kids do seek them out with questions.<br>A law like this, can shut this avenue of information down.</p><p>*DISCLAIMER:  if any of the parent or child posts were written by anyone under 18 years of age, the above statements are hereby retracted and rendered null and void for said poster(s).  Reading of this post, acknowledges and agrees to the terms and conditions of this disclaimer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adults talking to children is not the only issue .
This would necessarily cover children talking to adults.A teacher , tutor or babysitter could all get snagged by this law.Adults are an information resource for kids - kids do seek them out with questions.A law like this , can shut this avenue of information down .
* DISCLAIMER : if any of the parent or child posts were written by anyone under 18 years of age , the above statements are hereby retracted and rendered null and void for said poster ( s ) .
Reading of this post , acknowledges and agrees to the terms and conditions of this disclaimer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adults talking to children is not the only issue.
This would necessarily cover children talking to adults.A teacher, tutor or babysitter could all get snagged by this law.Adults are an information resource for kids - kids do seek them out with questions.A law like this, can shut this avenue of information down.
*DISCLAIMER:  if any of the parent or child posts were written by anyone under 18 years of age, the above statements are hereby retracted and rendered null and void for said poster(s).
Reading of this post, acknowledges and agrees to the terms and conditions of this disclaimer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</id>
	<title>Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1260197520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I RTFA.</p><p>I didn't realize they didn't have double jeopardy in Canada.</p><p>How many times can a person be tried for the same offense in Canada?  Is there a limit?  Do prosecutors and courts just keep changing the rules and re-filing charges until they get a conviction?</p><p>I'm not being intentionally obtuse, here.  I'm legitimately curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTFA.I did n't realize they did n't have double jeopardy in Canada.How many times can a person be tried for the same offense in Canada ?
Is there a limit ?
Do prosecutors and courts just keep changing the rules and re-filing charges until they get a conviction ? I 'm not being intentionally obtuse , here .
I 'm legitimately curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTFA.I didn't realize they didn't have double jeopardy in Canada.How many times can a person be tried for the same offense in Canada?
Is there a limit?
Do prosecutors and courts just keep changing the rules and re-filing charges until they get a conviction?I'm not being intentionally obtuse, here.
I'm legitimately curious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353668</id>
	<title>It can't possibly be enforced</title>
	<author>kenbo0422</author>
	<datestamp>1260204540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, if I just so happen to strike up a conversation with one of my daughter's friends, then I'm a criminal???  I'm not Canadian, but what if that were the case, would planning, say, a surprise party, on a sneaky basis (hey, its a surprise party!!) be a criminal offense??  I doubt it would hold up in any court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I just so happen to strike up a conversation with one of my daughter 's friends , then I 'm a criminal ? ? ?
I 'm not Canadian , but what if that were the case , would planning , say , a surprise party , on a sneaky basis ( hey , its a surprise party ! !
) be a criminal offense ? ?
I doubt it would hold up in any court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I just so happen to strike up a conversation with one of my daughter's friends, then I'm a criminal???
I'm not Canadian, but what if that were the case, would planning, say, a surprise party, on a sneaky basis (hey, its a surprise party!!
) be a criminal offense??
I doubt it would hold up in any court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352394</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>The Second Horseman</author>
	<datestamp>1260198600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're chipping away at it in the UK as well - there's a proposal in Scotland to get rid of the rule for murder and rape cases. Of course, we know that the police never focus on the wrong person, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're chipping away at it in the UK as well - there 's a proposal in Scotland to get rid of the rule for murder and rape cases .
Of course , we know that the police never focus on the wrong person , ignoring all evidence to the contrary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're chipping away at it in the UK as well - there's a proposal in Scotland to get rid of the rule for murder and rape cases.
Of course, we know that the police never focus on the wrong person, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352792</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>greenreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1260200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they did that, we'd lose half our Wikipedia administrators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did that , we 'd lose half our Wikipedia administrators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they did that, we'd lose half our Wikipedia administrators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352402</id>
	<title>There's another law you need to keep in mind.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1260198600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't see a problem with laws being created just in case you need something to pin on an alleged perpetrator?</p><p>I'll bet that the people in favor of RICO never expected it would get applied to anti-abortion protesters. I suspect a good many of them WERE anti-abortion protesters.</p><p>The more bad laws out there, the more the state can "legitimately" arrest you for "driving while black", or "young", or "geeky", or "activist", or fill-in-the-blank. The more people end up ignoring real laws because they can't keep track of which ones are just there for entrapment purposes.</p><p>Because <i>the law of unintended consequences</i> isn't going to get repealed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't see a problem with laws being created just in case you need something to pin on an alleged perpetrator ? I 'll bet that the people in favor of RICO never expected it would get applied to anti-abortion protesters .
I suspect a good many of them WERE anti-abortion protesters.The more bad laws out there , the more the state can " legitimately " arrest you for " driving while black " , or " young " , or " geeky " , or " activist " , or fill-in-the-blank .
The more people end up ignoring real laws because they ca n't keep track of which ones are just there for entrapment purposes.Because the law of unintended consequences is n't going to get repealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't see a problem with laws being created just in case you need something to pin on an alleged perpetrator?I'll bet that the people in favor of RICO never expected it would get applied to anti-abortion protesters.
I suspect a good many of them WERE anti-abortion protesters.The more bad laws out there, the more the state can "legitimately" arrest you for "driving while black", or "young", or "geeky", or "activist", or fill-in-the-blank.
The more people end up ignoring real laws because they can't keep track of which ones are just there for entrapment purposes.Because the law of unintended consequences isn't going to get repealed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352974</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260201300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are kid friendly MMOs, why not just use one of those?</p><p>WOW isn't rated for 9-year-olds, anyway. Even if you ignore the "online content" warning, I believe it's either 12+ or 15+.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are kid friendly MMOs , why not just use one of those ? WOW is n't rated for 9-year-olds , anyway .
Even if you ignore the " online content " warning , I believe it 's either 12 + or 15 + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are kid friendly MMOs, why not just use one of those?WOW isn't rated for 9-year-olds, anyway.
Even if you ignore the "online content" warning, I believe it's either 12+ or 15+.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351940</id>
	<title>Shit!</title>
	<author>antifoidulus</author>
	<datestamp>1260196500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean I won't be able to sell crack on the Barney the Dinosaur message boards anymore?  Thats where all my best customers come from!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean I wo n't be able to sell crack on the Barney the Dinosaur message boards anymore ?
Thats where all my best customers come from !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean I won't be able to sell crack on the Barney the Dinosaur message boards anymore?
Thats where all my best customers come from!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356170</id>
	<title>Its not "for the children"</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1260215580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are just morons - as most people seem to become once they have had children.</p><p>People should just stop having children - that would solve ALL or problems in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are just morons - as most people seem to become once they have had children.People should just stop having children - that would solve ALL or problems in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are just morons - as most people seem to become once they have had children.People should just stop having children - that would solve ALL or problems in the long run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357058</id>
	<title>Burden of proof?</title>
	<author>AA Wulf</author>
	<datestamp>1260176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's good to know that the US and the UK haven't cornered the market on legislating from the bench and shifting the burden of proof to the defendants.  When did we decide that prosecutors no longer had to establish evidence of intent before someone could be declared guilty of committing a crime?  Next thing you know, taxi drivers will have to go out of business because they might be charged with accessory to armed bank robbery for "driving the getaway car" without any knowledge of it.  A word to our wonderful judges across the world:  fit the crime to the law, not the law to crime, please!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good to know that the US and the UK have n't cornered the market on legislating from the bench and shifting the burden of proof to the defendants .
When did we decide that prosecutors no longer had to establish evidence of intent before someone could be declared guilty of committing a crime ?
Next thing you know , taxi drivers will have to go out of business because they might be charged with accessory to armed bank robbery for " driving the getaway car " without any knowledge of it .
A word to our wonderful judges across the world : fit the crime to the law , not the law to crime , please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good to know that the US and the UK haven't cornered the market on legislating from the bench and shifting the burden of proof to the defendants.
When did we decide that prosecutors no longer had to establish evidence of intent before someone could be declared guilty of committing a crime?
Next thing you know, taxi drivers will have to go out of business because they might be charged with accessory to armed bank robbery for "driving the getaway car" without any knowledge of it.
A word to our wonderful judges across the world:  fit the crime to the law, not the law to crime, please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354218</id>
	<title>Re:probably no need to worry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260206880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Canada's are called "Crown Attorney," "Attorney for the Crown," and such like.  If they're in Federal Court, "Federal" is tacked on to their title.  In Canada, all criminal law is the responsibility of the Federal Government in right of the Crown.  That being said, the administration of said law is left up to the provinces, so although they do not get to set the law, they are the ones who run the courts.  The exception being criminal cases involving laws that are not part of the criminal code, such as tax evasion and drugs, which are reserved for the Federal courts.  (I imagine because when the delegation of power was written up, nobody imagined there would be criminal laws outside of the criminal code!)
</p><p>
Government lawyers who represent the government in non-criminal cases, such as Provincial and municipal laws, are called "General Counsel", and the term "Crown Counsel" can refer to either. </p><p>
In Ontario it works just about exactly like the US system, where each District has exactly one Crown Attorney, and if he/she needs help, Assistant Crown Attorneys are hired.  In other provinces, it works in a variety of ways.  Unlike in the USA, they are not elected, but appointed by the Attorney General, so they don't tend to grandstand and try to win votes with highly publicized cases, so there is less of a risk of a Crown Attorney running wild with these "Child Luring" cases to make a name for himself.  Though, as political appointments, they may feel some compulsion to toe the party line, I suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada 's are called " Crown Attorney , " " Attorney for the Crown , " and such like .
If they 're in Federal Court , " Federal " is tacked on to their title .
In Canada , all criminal law is the responsibility of the Federal Government in right of the Crown .
That being said , the administration of said law is left up to the provinces , so although they do not get to set the law , they are the ones who run the courts .
The exception being criminal cases involving laws that are not part of the criminal code , such as tax evasion and drugs , which are reserved for the Federal courts .
( I imagine because when the delegation of power was written up , nobody imagined there would be criminal laws outside of the criminal code !
) Government lawyers who represent the government in non-criminal cases , such as Provincial and municipal laws , are called " General Counsel " , and the term " Crown Counsel " can refer to either .
In Ontario it works just about exactly like the US system , where each District has exactly one Crown Attorney , and if he/she needs help , Assistant Crown Attorneys are hired .
In other provinces , it works in a variety of ways .
Unlike in the USA , they are not elected , but appointed by the Attorney General , so they do n't tend to grandstand and try to win votes with highly publicized cases , so there is less of a risk of a Crown Attorney running wild with these " Child Luring " cases to make a name for himself .
Though , as political appointments , they may feel some compulsion to toe the party line , I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Canada's are called "Crown Attorney," "Attorney for the Crown," and such like.
If they're in Federal Court, "Federal" is tacked on to their title.
In Canada, all criminal law is the responsibility of the Federal Government in right of the Crown.
That being said, the administration of said law is left up to the provinces, so although they do not get to set the law, they are the ones who run the courts.
The exception being criminal cases involving laws that are not part of the criminal code, such as tax evasion and drugs, which are reserved for the Federal courts.
(I imagine because when the delegation of power was written up, nobody imagined there would be criminal laws outside of the criminal code!
)

Government lawyers who represent the government in non-criminal cases, such as Provincial and municipal laws, are called "General Counsel", and the term "Crown Counsel" can refer to either.
In Ontario it works just about exactly like the US system, where each District has exactly one Crown Attorney, and if he/she needs help, Assistant Crown Attorneys are hired.
In other provinces, it works in a variety of ways.
Unlike in the USA, they are not elected, but appointed by the Attorney General, so they don't tend to grandstand and try to win votes with highly publicized cases, so there is less of a risk of a Crown Attorney running wild with these "Child Luring" cases to make a name for himself.
Though, as political appointments, they may feel some compulsion to toe the party line, I suppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351792</id>
	<title>so...</title>
	<author>Lord Dreamshaper</author>
	<datestamp>1260195780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get mad at you, buy a gun, walk around with it loaded for a few days, never seriously intending to do anything to you or anyone else...and I'm guilty of attempted murder instead of just some degree of weapons charge?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get mad at you , buy a gun , walk around with it loaded for a few days , never seriously intending to do anything to you or anyone else...and I 'm guilty of attempted murder instead of just some degree of weapons charge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get mad at you, buy a gun, walk around with it loaded for a few days, never seriously intending to do anything to you or anyone else...and I'm guilty of attempted murder instead of just some degree of weapons charge?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352254</id>
	<title>No children... Really?</title>
	<author>KDEnut</author>
	<datestamp>1260198000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a knee-jerk reaction to simply say either: "No children on the internet!" or "I must protect my children at all costs!".  The first is a typical knee-jerk, the second just makes coddled children who *Won't* think for themselves, who grow up to be adults who expect the government to continue to coddle them.

I have two girls, both under the age of 10.  Both have a Facebook account registered under pseudonyms. Both have played MMORG's on my lap.  My point?  Parenting is more than just protection, it's education.  Each of my daughters online sessions is supervised, and used to educate them on what IS and what IS NOT allowed.  We repeatedly emphasis that anything done on the net is permanent.  We teach how to don and maintain a layer of anonymity between their true selves and the keyboard.

tl:dr Summery. Teach your children to use the net like you would teach them to ride a bike.  Run beside them in the beginning, grow to riding beside them to teach road-rules with the goal of smart decision making as (mostly) self-sufficient teens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a knee-jerk reaction to simply say either : " No children on the internet !
" or " I must protect my children at all costs ! " .
The first is a typical knee-jerk , the second just makes coddled children who * Wo n't * think for themselves , who grow up to be adults who expect the government to continue to coddle them .
I have two girls , both under the age of 10 .
Both have a Facebook account registered under pseudonyms .
Both have played MMORG 's on my lap .
My point ?
Parenting is more than just protection , it 's education .
Each of my daughters online sessions is supervised , and used to educate them on what IS and what IS NOT allowed .
We repeatedly emphasis that anything done on the net is permanent .
We teach how to don and maintain a layer of anonymity between their true selves and the keyboard .
tl : dr Summery .
Teach your children to use the net like you would teach them to ride a bike .
Run beside them in the beginning , grow to riding beside them to teach road-rules with the goal of smart decision making as ( mostly ) self-sufficient teens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a knee-jerk reaction to simply say either: "No children on the internet!
" or "I must protect my children at all costs!".
The first is a typical knee-jerk, the second just makes coddled children who *Won't* think for themselves, who grow up to be adults who expect the government to continue to coddle them.
I have two girls, both under the age of 10.
Both have a Facebook account registered under pseudonyms.
Both have played MMORG's on my lap.
My point?
Parenting is more than just protection, it's education.
Each of my daughters online sessions is supervised, and used to educate them on what IS and what IS NOT allowed.
We repeatedly emphasis that anything done on the net is permanent.
We teach how to don and maintain a layer of anonymity between their true selves and the keyboard.
tl:dr Summery.
Teach your children to use the net like you would teach them to ride a bike.
Run beside them in the beginning, grow to riding beside them to teach road-rules with the goal of smart decision making as (mostly) self-sufficient teens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354602</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you said, there is no double jeopardy in Canada, so a policeman couldn't pretend to be a 12 year old girl in order to catch someone 'luring'.</p><p>As for how many times you can be tried; once.  But that can be appealed to a higher court.  So there's the first court, then it can be taken to an appeals court (heard by 3 judges) then the supreme court (heard by 5 judges).</p><p>But most cases don't go on to an appeal and of those that do less than 3\% go on to the supreme court who hear "40-75" cases a year according to wikipedia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you said , there is no double jeopardy in Canada , so a policeman could n't pretend to be a 12 year old girl in order to catch someone 'luring'.As for how many times you can be tried ; once .
But that can be appealed to a higher court .
So there 's the first court , then it can be taken to an appeals court ( heard by 3 judges ) then the supreme court ( heard by 5 judges ) .But most cases do n't go on to an appeal and of those that do less than 3 \ % go on to the supreme court who hear " 40-75 " cases a year according to wikipedia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you said, there is no double jeopardy in Canada, so a policeman couldn't pretend to be a 12 year old girl in order to catch someone 'luring'.As for how many times you can be tried; once.
But that can be appealed to a higher court.
So there's the first court, then it can be taken to an appeals court (heard by 3 judges) then the supreme court (heard by 5 judges).But most cases don't go on to an appeal and of those that do less than 3\% go on to the supreme court who hear "40-75" cases a year according to wikipedia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351918</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>cbeaudry</author>
	<datestamp>1260196380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big brother, big sister programs. Neighbour, family friend, uncle or aunt, baby sitter/nanny, teacher, tutor, etc...</p><p>There are lots of exceptions to your description, which I hope they made in this law. (though I wish they didint create this law at all)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big brother , big sister programs .
Neighbour , family friend , uncle or aunt , baby sitter/nanny , teacher , tutor , etc...There are lots of exceptions to your description , which I hope they made in this law .
( though I wish they didint create this law at all )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big brother, big sister programs.
Neighbour, family friend, uncle or aunt, baby sitter/nanny, teacher, tutor, etc...There are lots of exceptions to your description, which I hope they made in this law.
(though I wish they didint create this law at all)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352528</id>
	<title>Think Of The Children</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1260199200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might not be trivial that the baby boomer generation, who more than any other generation sated themselves at an inestimable cost to future generations, are intent in keeping their children and grandchildren in suspended development. I recently finished an excellent set of lectures by R Wyman <a href="http://oyc.yale.edu/molecular-cellular-and-developmental-biology/global-problems-of-population-growth/content/downloads" title="yale.edu">global population and biological development</a> [yale.edu]. The lectures are one of a number of an excellent series of Yale lectures with comparatively outstanding production values. I'm not suggesting Professor Wyman even hints at the subjugation of a younger generation by an older generation by enforcing a prolonged adolescence but his lectures on ape behaviour speak to behaviour in older males in terms of excluding others from resources. Thinking of the well being of children is sacrosanct and well intentioned but it's not uninteresting to view it as an unconscious ploy by a bloated, disproportionately over populated generation to control resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might not be trivial that the baby boomer generation , who more than any other generation sated themselves at an inestimable cost to future generations , are intent in keeping their children and grandchildren in suspended development .
I recently finished an excellent set of lectures by R Wyman global population and biological development [ yale.edu ] .
The lectures are one of a number of an excellent series of Yale lectures with comparatively outstanding production values .
I 'm not suggesting Professor Wyman even hints at the subjugation of a younger generation by an older generation by enforcing a prolonged adolescence but his lectures on ape behaviour speak to behaviour in older males in terms of excluding others from resources .
Thinking of the well being of children is sacrosanct and well intentioned but it 's not uninteresting to view it as an unconscious ploy by a bloated , disproportionately over populated generation to control resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might not be trivial that the baby boomer generation, who more than any other generation sated themselves at an inestimable cost to future generations, are intent in keeping their children and grandchildren in suspended development.
I recently finished an excellent set of lectures by R Wyman global population and biological development [yale.edu].
The lectures are one of a number of an excellent series of Yale lectures with comparatively outstanding production values.
I'm not suggesting Professor Wyman even hints at the subjugation of a younger generation by an older generation by enforcing a prolonged adolescence but his lectures on ape behaviour speak to behaviour in older males in terms of excluding others from resources.
Thinking of the well being of children is sacrosanct and well intentioned but it's not uninteresting to view it as an unconscious ploy by a bloated, disproportionately over populated generation to control resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354366</id>
	<title>Only online?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260207360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm too lazy to RTFA, but does this law only take in consideration online use? Is speaking 'inappropriately' to a child offline OK?  Also, who decides what 'inappropriate' is? It seems a bit too open to random interpretation to my liking. What if you're a parent, should you simply stop talking to your children to be safe from possible abuse by this law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm too lazy to RTFA , but does this law only take in consideration online use ?
Is speaking 'inappropriately ' to a child offline OK ?
Also , who decides what 'inappropriate ' is ?
It seems a bit too open to random interpretation to my liking .
What if you 're a parent , should you simply stop talking to your children to be safe from possible abuse by this law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm too lazy to RTFA, but does this law only take in consideration online use?
Is speaking 'inappropriately' to a child offline OK?
Also, who decides what 'inappropriate' is?
It seems a bit too open to random interpretation to my liking.
What if you're a parent, should you simply stop talking to your children to be safe from possible abuse by this law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352150</id>
	<title>Law Sould Also Require Mandatory Age Disclosure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260197580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should also require mandatory age disclosure since you can't know what is the age of somebody else on the InterWeb. Failure to disclose your age should be punishable with jail time, even for minors. After all, it's for the fucking children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should also require mandatory age disclosure since you ca n't know what is the age of somebody else on the InterWeb .
Failure to disclose your age should be punishable with jail time , even for minors .
After all , it 's for the fucking children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should also require mandatory age disclosure since you can't know what is the age of somebody else on the InterWeb.
Failure to disclose your age should be punishable with jail time, even for minors.
After all, it's for the fucking children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352242</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>2phar</author>
	<datestamp>1260198000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Asking them to put down the gun perhaps?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asking them to put down the gun perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asking them to put down the gun perhaps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351732</id>
	<title>Maybe this law will stop the Italians</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1260195480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They thumb their noses at our democracy and leer salaciously at our sons and daughters through their phony moustaches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They thumb their noses at our democracy and leer salaciously at our sons and daughters through their phony moustaches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They thumb their noses at our democracy and leer salaciously at our sons and daughters through their phony moustaches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351836</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do we know you're not a child? Or the poster for that matter! Merely answering a slashdot story could be a potential offense.</p><p>Methinks we're going to see less Canadians around here for a while...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know you 're not a child ?
Or the poster for that matter !
Merely answering a slashdot story could be a potential offense.Methinks we 're going to see less Canadians around here for a while.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know you're not a child?
Or the poster for that matter!
Merely answering a slashdot story could be a potential offense.Methinks we're going to see less Canadians around here for a while...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355984</id>
	<title>Re:go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs</title>
	<author>Wowlapalooza</author>
	<datestamp>1260214680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mother crocodile reacts because she thinks you are going to <b>harm</b> her young in some tangible, concrete way</p><p>Most of these "child-protection" measures exist because there is a social stigma attached to adults having sex with children</p><p>The former is driven by a biological imperative, the latter is not; it's socially-constructed</p><p>In fact, one could argue that the general biological imperative for the male of the species to spread his genetic code far and wide actually explains why many/most adult males are aroused by the sight/thought/presence of nubile teen females, and some percentage of those will, despite the social taboos, act on those impulses.So, when viewed through the narrow lens of "biological imperatives", it's actually more expected that these liaisons occur than for them to be prevented. More "natural", as it were.</p><p>(I'm sure those who read this casually, or selectively, will be aghast at the thought that Wowlapalooza is claiming that raping children is "natural". But that misses the point that I'm trying to make here; that viewing a complex, multi-variable issue like protecting children from abuse, from one limited, academic perspective like "biological imperatives", is superficial, does a disservice to both sides of the debate, and can lead to surprising, perhaps even repugnant conclusions. This <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> is offered in direct opposition to circletimessquare's approach, to which I was directly responding.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mother crocodile reacts because she thinks you are going to harm her young in some tangible , concrete wayMost of these " child-protection " measures exist because there is a social stigma attached to adults having sex with childrenThe former is driven by a biological imperative , the latter is not ; it 's socially-constructedIn fact , one could argue that the general biological imperative for the male of the species to spread his genetic code far and wide actually explains why many/most adult males are aroused by the sight/thought/presence of nubile teen females , and some percentage of those will , despite the social taboos , act on those impulses.So , when viewed through the narrow lens of " biological imperatives " , it 's actually more expected that these liaisons occur than for them to be prevented .
More " natural " , as it were .
( I 'm sure those who read this casually , or selectively , will be aghast at the thought that Wowlapalooza is claiming that raping children is " natural " .
But that misses the point that I 'm trying to make here ; that viewing a complex , multi-variable issue like protecting children from abuse , from one limited , academic perspective like " biological imperatives " , is superficial , does a disservice to both sides of the debate , and can lead to surprising , perhaps even repugnant conclusions .
This reductio ad absurdum is offered in direct opposition to circletimessquare 's approach , to which I was directly responding .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mother crocodile reacts because she thinks you are going to harm her young in some tangible, concrete wayMost of these "child-protection" measures exist because there is a social stigma attached to adults having sex with childrenThe former is driven by a biological imperative, the latter is not; it's socially-constructedIn fact, one could argue that the general biological imperative for the male of the species to spread his genetic code far and wide actually explains why many/most adult males are aroused by the sight/thought/presence of nubile teen females, and some percentage of those will, despite the social taboos, act on those impulses.So, when viewed through the narrow lens of "biological imperatives", it's actually more expected that these liaisons occur than for them to be prevented.
More "natural", as it were.
(I'm sure those who read this casually, or selectively, will be aghast at the thought that Wowlapalooza is claiming that raping children is "natural".
But that misses the point that I'm trying to make here; that viewing a complex, multi-variable issue like protecting children from abuse, from one limited, academic perspective like "biological imperatives", is superficial, does a disservice to both sides of the debate, and can lead to surprising, perhaps even repugnant conclusions.
This reductio ad absurdum is offered in direct opposition to circletimessquare's approach, to which I was directly responding.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355064</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1260210120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yes, if you hop on WoW and tell a 13* year old girl you want to meet to have sex, you can be arrested in Canada.  If you tell her you like drinking, you're fine.  You have to have an inappropriate conversation with the purpose of facilitating a future crime.  If you're telling this 13 year old girl you want to take her drinking, yeah, that's illegal, you're facilitating breaking a law.  In this case, the defense tried to argue that although he expressed an interest in doing so, since he took no overt action to put this desire into action, he didn't break the law.  That is, since the law says the conversation is to facilitate a crime, you haven't broken this law until you try to break the law you were "facilitating" the breaking of.  In this instance, he was having cyber sex with a 12 year old, which though icky, isn't illegal.  However, he told her he wants to do it for real some day.  He got arrested, and tried to argue that those are just words, and they can't prove he intended to go through with it, because he never made concrete arrangements.  So he was found not guilty.  The Supreme Court overturned this conviction, because that was incorrect jury instruction.  The law requires only that you have a conversation with a child in order to facilitate committing a crime involving that child.  Unlike conspiracy, no overt act is required outside the communication.  He said he wants to have sex in person some day.  The idea that if you're trying to meet a 12 year old for sex, it's not illegal until you set a specific date is absurd.  If a parent walks in and sees this in the chat window, the guy is A OK law-wise, unless the parent lets him keep going and sets a specific time and place?  I would pull the plug ASAP and call the police, and be deeply offended that he walks because I caught him trying to rape my 13 year old daughter before he set a specific place to meet her!
</p><p>
Scream all you want about a slippery slope, there is no slippery slope here.  The law wasn't broadened.  It still requires communicating an intent to break the law.  What it does is throw out the idea that you need to make an overt physical act to fulfill those plans.  The guy told a 12 year old he wants to have sex with her.  He then tried to argue it was just empty talk, he would never really do it, no sir, cybersex with a 12 year old is enough for him.  Maybe you believe him.  That's fine.  It actually is a fairly reasonable argument.  Lots of married men browse adult dating sites and craigslist etc, but few of them ever intend to go through with it.  The internet is full of people who get off to a variety of unhealthy fetishes, but probably have no intent of having a dominatrix cut their limbs off, or make them eat excrement, but still say how much they want it online.  However, that's up to the jury to decide.  They were told it doesn't matter his intent because he never made concrete plans.  The Supreme Court said that's incorrect instruction, so now he gets a new trial.  If he convinces the jury that he had no intent, he's free to go.  And he expressed intent, so that will be hard for him to prove, he has to prove he wasn't serious, and its hard to convince a jury you weren't serious, when you were certainly serious about having cybersex with a girl you thought was 13 (she was really 12 but it IS about what you thought, not about what was real).
</p><p>
* You may think I chose 13 instead of 17 to make your arguments look worse.  However, I did not.  You say a child is LEGALLY somebody under 18, but you are mistaken, my good man.  That's a minor.  A child, and this law is about children, not minors, is under 14 (in Canada anyway).  So, while I may have appeared to be making a strawman argument, 13 is actually the oldest possible person which this law applies to.  Were you telling your 14 year old buddy on WoW, not your 13 year old buddy, that you want to take him drinking, you'd actually have to do so before you broke the law.  Anyways, you can see I barely called you any names, so Canadians ARE nice, and I read TFA and the ruling before talking about it, so we're also sensible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  Also, "Whaddya mean, you people eh?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , if you hop on WoW and tell a 13 * year old girl you want to meet to have sex , you can be arrested in Canada .
If you tell her you like drinking , you 're fine .
You have to have an inappropriate conversation with the purpose of facilitating a future crime .
If you 're telling this 13 year old girl you want to take her drinking , yeah , that 's illegal , you 're facilitating breaking a law .
In this case , the defense tried to argue that although he expressed an interest in doing so , since he took no overt action to put this desire into action , he did n't break the law .
That is , since the law says the conversation is to facilitate a crime , you have n't broken this law until you try to break the law you were " facilitating " the breaking of .
In this instance , he was having cyber sex with a 12 year old , which though icky , is n't illegal .
However , he told her he wants to do it for real some day .
He got arrested , and tried to argue that those are just words , and they ca n't prove he intended to go through with it , because he never made concrete arrangements .
So he was found not guilty .
The Supreme Court overturned this conviction , because that was incorrect jury instruction .
The law requires only that you have a conversation with a child in order to facilitate committing a crime involving that child .
Unlike conspiracy , no overt act is required outside the communication .
He said he wants to have sex in person some day .
The idea that if you 're trying to meet a 12 year old for sex , it 's not illegal until you set a specific date is absurd .
If a parent walks in and sees this in the chat window , the guy is A OK law-wise , unless the parent lets him keep going and sets a specific time and place ?
I would pull the plug ASAP and call the police , and be deeply offended that he walks because I caught him trying to rape my 13 year old daughter before he set a specific place to meet her !
Scream all you want about a slippery slope , there is no slippery slope here .
The law was n't broadened .
It still requires communicating an intent to break the law .
What it does is throw out the idea that you need to make an overt physical act to fulfill those plans .
The guy told a 12 year old he wants to have sex with her .
He then tried to argue it was just empty talk , he would never really do it , no sir , cybersex with a 12 year old is enough for him .
Maybe you believe him .
That 's fine .
It actually is a fairly reasonable argument .
Lots of married men browse adult dating sites and craigslist etc , but few of them ever intend to go through with it .
The internet is full of people who get off to a variety of unhealthy fetishes , but probably have no intent of having a dominatrix cut their limbs off , or make them eat excrement , but still say how much they want it online .
However , that 's up to the jury to decide .
They were told it does n't matter his intent because he never made concrete plans .
The Supreme Court said that 's incorrect instruction , so now he gets a new trial .
If he convinces the jury that he had no intent , he 's free to go .
And he expressed intent , so that will be hard for him to prove , he has to prove he was n't serious , and its hard to convince a jury you were n't serious , when you were certainly serious about having cybersex with a girl you thought was 13 ( she was really 12 but it IS about what you thought , not about what was real ) .
* You may think I chose 13 instead of 17 to make your arguments look worse .
However , I did not .
You say a child is LEGALLY somebody under 18 , but you are mistaken , my good man .
That 's a minor .
A child , and this law is about children , not minors , is under 14 ( in Canada anyway ) .
So , while I may have appeared to be making a strawman argument , 13 is actually the oldest possible person which this law applies to .
Were you telling your 14 year old buddy on WoW , not your 13 year old buddy , that you want to take him drinking , you 'd actually have to do so before you broke the law .
Anyways , you can see I barely called you any names , so Canadians ARE nice , and I read TFA and the ruling before talking about it , so we 're also sensible ; ) Also , " Whaddya mean , you people eh ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes, if you hop on WoW and tell a 13* year old girl you want to meet to have sex, you can be arrested in Canada.
If you tell her you like drinking, you're fine.
You have to have an inappropriate conversation with the purpose of facilitating a future crime.
If you're telling this 13 year old girl you want to take her drinking, yeah, that's illegal, you're facilitating breaking a law.
In this case, the defense tried to argue that although he expressed an interest in doing so, since he took no overt action to put this desire into action, he didn't break the law.
That is, since the law says the conversation is to facilitate a crime, you haven't broken this law until you try to break the law you were "facilitating" the breaking of.
In this instance, he was having cyber sex with a 12 year old, which though icky, isn't illegal.
However, he told her he wants to do it for real some day.
He got arrested, and tried to argue that those are just words, and they can't prove he intended to go through with it, because he never made concrete arrangements.
So he was found not guilty.
The Supreme Court overturned this conviction, because that was incorrect jury instruction.
The law requires only that you have a conversation with a child in order to facilitate committing a crime involving that child.
Unlike conspiracy, no overt act is required outside the communication.
He said he wants to have sex in person some day.
The idea that if you're trying to meet a 12 year old for sex, it's not illegal until you set a specific date is absurd.
If a parent walks in and sees this in the chat window, the guy is A OK law-wise, unless the parent lets him keep going and sets a specific time and place?
I would pull the plug ASAP and call the police, and be deeply offended that he walks because I caught him trying to rape my 13 year old daughter before he set a specific place to meet her!
Scream all you want about a slippery slope, there is no slippery slope here.
The law wasn't broadened.
It still requires communicating an intent to break the law.
What it does is throw out the idea that you need to make an overt physical act to fulfill those plans.
The guy told a 12 year old he wants to have sex with her.
He then tried to argue it was just empty talk, he would never really do it, no sir, cybersex with a 12 year old is enough for him.
Maybe you believe him.
That's fine.
It actually is a fairly reasonable argument.
Lots of married men browse adult dating sites and craigslist etc, but few of them ever intend to go through with it.
The internet is full of people who get off to a variety of unhealthy fetishes, but probably have no intent of having a dominatrix cut their limbs off, or make them eat excrement, but still say how much they want it online.
However, that's up to the jury to decide.
They were told it doesn't matter his intent because he never made concrete plans.
The Supreme Court said that's incorrect instruction, so now he gets a new trial.
If he convinces the jury that he had no intent, he's free to go.
And he expressed intent, so that will be hard for him to prove, he has to prove he wasn't serious, and its hard to convince a jury you weren't serious, when you were certainly serious about having cybersex with a girl you thought was 13 (she was really 12 but it IS about what you thought, not about what was real).
* You may think I chose 13 instead of 17 to make your arguments look worse.
However, I did not.
You say a child is LEGALLY somebody under 18, but you are mistaken, my good man.
That's a minor.
A child, and this law is about children, not minors, is under 14 (in Canada anyway).
So, while I may have appeared to be making a strawman argument, 13 is actually the oldest possible person which this law applies to.
Were you telling your 14 year old buddy on WoW, not your 13 year old buddy, that you want to take him drinking, you'd actually have to do so before you broke the law.
Anyways, you can see I barely called you any names, so Canadians ARE nice, and I read TFA and the ruling before talking about it, so we're also sensible ;)  Also, "Whaddya mean, you people eh?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352868</id>
	<title>The campaigners need your help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260200760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a lack of balance in the aims of some children's rights campaigners. While they may, or may not, have saved some children and punished some perpetrators, they have also succeeded in poisoning the atmosphere for everyone else. No man can now play with a child without feeling self conscious, second guessing what anyone watching might be thinking. Even fathers find themselves wondering from time to time how they might be perceived by others. Having demonised first single men, then fathers, uncles and brothers, here in the UK the zealots are now also focusing their attention on the mothers and sisters who might corrupt a child, and in doing so, they are destroying what little innocent and natural interaction between adults and children that ought to prevail in any society.</p><p>It is the campaigners obsessively pushing for these all encompassing changes who should be put under closer scrutiny, because it is they who have long since left behind any reasonable pursuit of wrong doers in favour of a witch hunt which affects every normal person in society today.</p><p>Who are they? They need help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lack of balance in the aims of some children 's rights campaigners .
While they may , or may not , have saved some children and punished some perpetrators , they have also succeeded in poisoning the atmosphere for everyone else .
No man can now play with a child without feeling self conscious , second guessing what anyone watching might be thinking .
Even fathers find themselves wondering from time to time how they might be perceived by others .
Having demonised first single men , then fathers , uncles and brothers , here in the UK the zealots are now also focusing their attention on the mothers and sisters who might corrupt a child , and in doing so , they are destroying what little innocent and natural interaction between adults and children that ought to prevail in any society.It is the campaigners obsessively pushing for these all encompassing changes who should be put under closer scrutiny , because it is they who have long since left behind any reasonable pursuit of wrong doers in favour of a witch hunt which affects every normal person in society today.Who are they ?
They need help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lack of balance in the aims of some children's rights campaigners.
While they may, or may not, have saved some children and punished some perpetrators, they have also succeeded in poisoning the atmosphere for everyone else.
No man can now play with a child without feeling self conscious, second guessing what anyone watching might be thinking.
Even fathers find themselves wondering from time to time how they might be perceived by others.
Having demonised first single men, then fathers, uncles and brothers, here in the UK the zealots are now also focusing their attention on the mothers and sisters who might corrupt a child, and in doing so, they are destroying what little innocent and natural interaction between adults and children that ought to prevail in any society.It is the campaigners obsessively pushing for these all encompassing changes who should be put under closer scrutiny, because it is they who have long since left behind any reasonable pursuit of wrong doers in favour of a witch hunt which affects every normal person in society today.Who are they?
They need help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354304</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260207180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Minor league sports. School bands. Tourism. To name a few.<br>I live in Canada. Yep -35C this morning.<br>I have a couple sexy motorcycles and live adjacent to two grade schools. Children approach <em>me</em>! Usually one, sometimes a small group.<br>You're damn right I'm nervous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Minor league sports .
School bands .
Tourism. To name a few.I live in Canada .
Yep -35C this morning.I have a couple sexy motorcycles and live adjacent to two grade schools .
Children approach me !
Usually one , sometimes a small group.You 're damn right I 'm nervous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minor league sports.
School bands.
Tourism. To name a few.I live in Canada.
Yep -35C this morning.I have a couple sexy motorcycles and live adjacent to two grade schools.
Children approach me!
Usually one, sometimes a small group.You're damn right I'm nervous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353592</id>
	<title>Re:go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1260204180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>all i'm saying is that "think of the children!" might be the butt of every slashdot joke, but it is also an irrational "hysteria" that you need to make peace with and accept, because it is simply never, ever going away.</p></div></blockquote><p>Since this hysteria has only been around in its current form for a decade or so, I'm finding it difficult to accept that it is all that "natural" a reaction, on the part of individuals or society.</p><p>The truth is that the "think of the children" mentality is about as natural as racist and sexist thinking and about as damaging to society overall. It needs to be ridiculed, condemned and stamped out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all i 'm saying is that " think of the children !
" might be the butt of every slashdot joke , but it is also an irrational " hysteria " that you need to make peace with and accept , because it is simply never , ever going away.Since this hysteria has only been around in its current form for a decade or so , I 'm finding it difficult to accept that it is all that " natural " a reaction , on the part of individuals or society.The truth is that the " think of the children " mentality is about as natural as racist and sexist thinking and about as damaging to society overall .
It needs to be ridiculed , condemned and stamped out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all i'm saying is that "think of the children!
" might be the butt of every slashdot joke, but it is also an irrational "hysteria" that you need to make peace with and accept, because it is simply never, ever going away.Since this hysteria has only been around in its current form for a decade or so, I'm finding it difficult to accept that it is all that "natural" a reaction, on the part of individuals or society.The truth is that the "think of the children" mentality is about as natural as racist and sexist thinking and about as damaging to society overall.
It needs to be ridiculed, condemned and stamped out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353600</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1260204180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't pull that stunt in the US. You can't charge someone for the same event subsequent to being found not guilty, even if you decide to go after them for a lesser charge. The court would toss that at the arraignment hearing. An example would be if a cop arrested you for drunk driving after seeing you cross lanes without signaling and you then fail a field sobriety test. For whatever reason, you're not convicted of DUI. The cops and DA now cannot issue a citation for failure to signal because that was the same event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't pull that stunt in the US .
You ca n't charge someone for the same event subsequent to being found not guilty , even if you decide to go after them for a lesser charge .
The court would toss that at the arraignment hearing .
An example would be if a cop arrested you for drunk driving after seeing you cross lanes without signaling and you then fail a field sobriety test .
For whatever reason , you 're not convicted of DUI .
The cops and DA now can not issue a citation for failure to signal because that was the same event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't pull that stunt in the US.
You can't charge someone for the same event subsequent to being found not guilty, even if you decide to go after them for a lesser charge.
The court would toss that at the arraignment hearing.
An example would be if a cop arrested you for drunk driving after seeing you cross lanes without signaling and you then fail a field sobriety test.
For whatever reason, you're not convicted of DUI.
The cops and DA now cannot issue a citation for failure to signal because that was the same event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352840</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>greenreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1260200640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know, maybe you run a chat or website for a computer game that appeals to children? <i>Creatures</i> springs to mind . . . we had children as young as nine or ten dropping in there all the time, and this was back at the start of the decade. Oh, and you'd have adults and children cooperating on addon development, too.
<p>
Children are people too, they have similar interests and activities as adults. Think back to when you were 13; would you have wanted to restrict your world of interaction to your parents, your peers, and your teacher?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , maybe you run a chat or website for a computer game that appeals to children ?
Creatures springs to mind .
. .
we had children as young as nine or ten dropping in there all the time , and this was back at the start of the decade .
Oh , and you 'd have adults and children cooperating on addon development , too .
Children are people too , they have similar interests and activities as adults .
Think back to when you were 13 ; would you have wanted to restrict your world of interaction to your parents , your peers , and your teacher ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, maybe you run a chat or website for a computer game that appeals to children?
Creatures springs to mind .
. .
we had children as young as nine or ten dropping in there all the time, and this was back at the start of the decade.
Oh, and you'd have adults and children cooperating on addon development, too.
Children are people too, they have similar interests and activities as adults.
Think back to when you were 13; would you have wanted to restrict your world of interaction to your parents, your peers, and your teacher?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354794</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>residieu</author>
	<datestamp>1260208920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, there's no requirement for the conversation to turn to drinking. If you're making any overtures of friendship at all, "anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of", you're building up the child's trust and could be prosecuted on the grounds that you could go on to abuse him if you aren't stopped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there 's no requirement for the conversation to turn to drinking .
If you 're making any overtures of friendship at all , " anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of " , you 're building up the child 's trust and could be prosecuted on the grounds that you could go on to abuse him if you are n't stopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there's no requirement for the conversation to turn to drinking.
If you're making any overtures of friendship at all, "anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of", you're building up the child's trust and could be prosecuted on the grounds that you could go on to abuse him if you aren't stopped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352878</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260200820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>uh yeah. we'll use a magic technology to stop adults from trying to get in.</p><p>I'm sure no one will figure out that a few forwarded ports, iptables, and a few ethernet cards would create a gateway between the networks.</p><p>what a useless suggestion. utterly impossible to implement in practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>uh yeah .
we 'll use a magic technology to stop adults from trying to get in.I 'm sure no one will figure out that a few forwarded ports , iptables , and a few ethernet cards would create a gateway between the networks.what a useless suggestion .
utterly impossible to implement in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uh yeah.
we'll use a magic technology to stop adults from trying to get in.I'm sure no one will figure out that a few forwarded ports, iptables, and a few ethernet cards would create a gateway between the networks.what a useless suggestion.
utterly impossible to implement in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355854</id>
	<title>Well, I'm 11 years old...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260214020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm 11 years old...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...And you're ALL fucked!</p><p>Sheesh, some of the comments here have scarred me for life...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm 11 years old... ...And you 're ALL fucked ! Sheesh , some of the comments here have scarred me for life.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm 11 years old... ...And you're ALL fucked!Sheesh, some of the comments here have scarred me for life...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352440</id>
	<title>Don't think of the children!</title>
	<author>MadKeithV</author>
	<datestamp>1260198720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Canada, don't think of the children!  It's an offense!<br>

(I wonder, in Soviet Canada, do children think of you?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Canada , do n't think of the children !
It 's an offense !
( I wonder , in Soviet Canada , do children think of you ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Canada, don't think of the children!
It's an offense!
(I wonder, in Soviet Canada, do children think of you?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355864</id>
	<title>Tell your MP your opinion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260214140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know there is something that could be done. Stop whining about it and write to every applicable Canadian government official in your area and explain to them, in no uncertain terms, how what just went through has destroyed the internet. Optionally, refrain from revealing your identity and point out that replying to the message could make that government official guilty of child luring if you aren't actually over 18.</p><p>There's how many Canadians here? Get to work being a useful citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know there is something that could be done .
Stop whining about it and write to every applicable Canadian government official in your area and explain to them , in no uncertain terms , how what just went through has destroyed the internet .
Optionally , refrain from revealing your identity and point out that replying to the message could make that government official guilty of child luring if you are n't actually over 18.There 's how many Canadians here ?
Get to work being a useful citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know there is something that could be done.
Stop whining about it and write to every applicable Canadian government official in your area and explain to them, in no uncertain terms, how what just went through has destroyed the internet.
Optionally, refrain from revealing your identity and point out that replying to the message could make that government official guilty of child luring if you aren't actually over 18.There's how many Canadians here?
Get to work being a useful citizen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356720</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1260218400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely. That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.</p></div></blockquote><p>We replaced Idiomatick's coffee with folgers crystals, let's see what happens:</p><p>
It seems more and more reasonable to give porn sites their own version of the internet completely. That way we wont get crazy puritanical laws.</p><p>Do you EVER see that happening? No, because the people who make the "think of the children" and "puritanical" laws won't stop until these people are defanged.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely .
That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.We replaced Idiomatick 's coffee with folgers crystals , let 's see what happens : It seems more and more reasonable to give porn sites their own version of the internet completely .
That way we wont get crazy puritanical laws.Do you EVER see that happening ?
No , because the people who make the " think of the children " and " puritanical " laws wo n't stop until these people are defanged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely.
That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.We replaced Idiomatick's coffee with folgers crystals, let's see what happens:
It seems more and more reasonable to give porn sites their own version of the internet completely.
That way we wont get crazy puritanical laws.Do you EVER see that happening?
No, because the people who make the "think of the children" and "puritanical" laws won't stop until these people are defanged.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352966</id>
	<title>Re:Take the full step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260201300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then there would be no more slashdot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then there would be no more slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then there would be no more slashdot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358004</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>tricorn</author>
	<datestamp>1260181860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asking him if he's done his homework isn't inappropriate.</p><p>If you read the article, you'll see that the case in question was a 32 year old man posing as a 17 year old, talking to a 12 year old girl who claimed to be 13.  He was talking to the girl on-line and over the phone, and at issue was whether a) he actually intended to have physical contact with her; and b) if the talk in question was sexually explicit (the talk was sexual in nature, but not "explicit").  The judge ruled that his acquittal was too strict an interpretation of the law, and that</p><blockquote><div><p>"facilitating" could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The law in question makes it a crime to</p><blockquote><div><p>communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences.</p></div></blockquote><p>So first, the law hasn't been changed; second, the interpretation is nowhere near that you can be charged under it for any old conversation with a kid.  You should indeed be very careful if you start getting into areas of sexuality, and I'm troubled that it does leave things a bit vague, but it isn't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asking him if he 's done his homework is n't inappropriate.If you read the article , you 'll see that the case in question was a 32 year old man posing as a 17 year old , talking to a 12 year old girl who claimed to be 13 .
He was talking to the girl on-line and over the phone , and at issue was whether a ) he actually intended to have physical contact with her ; and b ) if the talk in question was sexually explicit ( the talk was sexual in nature , but not " explicit " ) .
The judge ruled that his acquittal was too strict an interpretation of the law , and that " facilitating " could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of .
The law in question makes it a crime tocommunicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences.So first , the law has n't been changed ; second , the interpretation is nowhere near that you can be charged under it for any old conversation with a kid .
You should indeed be very careful if you start getting into areas of sexuality , and I 'm troubled that it does leave things a bit vague , but it is n't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asking him if he's done his homework isn't inappropriate.If you read the article, you'll see that the case in question was a 32 year old man posing as a 17 year old, talking to a 12 year old girl who claimed to be 13.
He was talking to the girl on-line and over the phone, and at issue was whether a) he actually intended to have physical contact with her; and b) if the talk in question was sexually explicit (the talk was sexual in nature, but not "explicit").
The judge ruled that his acquittal was too strict an interpretation of the law, and that"facilitating" could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.
The law in question makes it a crime tocommunicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences.So first, the law hasn't been changed; second, the interpretation is nowhere near that you can be charged under it for any old conversation with a kid.
You should indeed be very careful if you start getting into areas of sexuality, and I'm troubled that it does leave things a bit vague, but it isn't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354994</id>
	<title>Unenforceable law is unenforceable.</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1260209880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't see this being legally enforceable because there are way too many places online where you can't be even remotely sure that the person you're conversing with is of legal age, even if it's somewhere that should ONLY be adults. Even online dating sites that are pay-only could potentially have an underage person on it, using their parents' credit card to gain access, or using someone else's account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see this being legally enforceable because there are way too many places online where you ca n't be even remotely sure that the person you 're conversing with is of legal age , even if it 's somewhere that should ONLY be adults .
Even online dating sites that are pay-only could potentially have an underage person on it , using their parents ' credit card to gain access , or using someone else 's account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see this being legally enforceable because there are way too many places online where you can't be even remotely sure that the person you're conversing with is of legal age, even if it's somewhere that should ONLY be adults.
Even online dating sites that are pay-only could potentially have an underage person on it, using their parents' credit card to gain access, or using someone else's account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352450</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>d3ac0n</author>
	<datestamp>1260198780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm...  That brings up an interesting point:</p><p>Does "teabagging n00bs after you've Pwned them" count as "chat"?</p><p>An interesting question to ponder...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... That brings up an interesting point : Does " teabagging n00bs after you 've Pwned them " count as " chat " ? An interesting question to ponder... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm...  That brings up an interesting point:Does "teabagging n00bs after you've Pwned them" count as "chat"?An interesting question to ponder... ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</id>
	<title>Take the full step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ban children from internet altogether!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ban children from internet altogether !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ban children from internet altogether!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356506</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>atilla filiz</author>
	<datestamp>1260217320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Turkey, we love children. We enjoy asking questions like "what do you want to be when you grow up?" to children we even don't know. You are waiting in a line, the guy/lady in front of you has a smal child. It is perfectly normal to pat the child's head and ask a (possibly silly) question, even give babies <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil\_eye" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">evil eye</a> [wikipedia.org] as a gift. Children give the most unexpected and amusing answers to your simple questions.<br>If I try to do this somewhere in North America, I'll probably get arrested as a sexual offender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Turkey , we love children .
We enjoy asking questions like " what do you want to be when you grow up ?
" to children we even do n't know .
You are waiting in a line , the guy/lady in front of you has a smal child .
It is perfectly normal to pat the child 's head and ask a ( possibly silly ) question , even give babies evil eye [ wikipedia.org ] as a gift .
Children give the most unexpected and amusing answers to your simple questions.If I try to do this somewhere in North America , I 'll probably get arrested as a sexual offender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Turkey, we love children.
We enjoy asking questions like "what do you want to be when you grow up?
" to children we even don't know.
You are waiting in a line, the guy/lady in front of you has a smal child.
It is perfectly normal to pat the child's head and ask a (possibly silly) question, even give babies evil eye [wikipedia.org] as a gift.
Children give the most unexpected and amusing answers to your simple questions.If I try to do this somewhere in North America, I'll probably get arrested as a sexual offender.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime."</p></div></blockquote><p>

Sorry, but talking to someone (anyone) is not illegal in itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you 're an adult and if you 're having conversations with a child on the Internet , be warned because even if your conversations are n't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child , what you 're doing is potentially a crime .
" Sorry , but talking to someone ( anyone ) is not illegal in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime.
"

Sorry, but talking to someone (anyone) is not illegal in itself.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356332</id>
	<title>It takes a village</title>
	<author>Hoi Polloi</author>
	<datestamp>1260216360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It takes a village to raise a child."  Yes, as long as you also have a police officer and two witnesses present and it is tape recorded.</p><p>Children are starting to resemble museum pieces.  Too fragile to be in public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It takes a village to raise a child .
" Yes , as long as you also have a police officer and two witnesses present and it is tape recorded.Children are starting to resemble museum pieces .
Too fragile to be in public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It takes a village to raise a child.
"  Yes, as long as you also have a police officer and two witnesses present and it is tape recorded.Children are starting to resemble museum pieces.
Too fragile to be in public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354678</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1260208560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why would an adult need to communicate with someone else's child over the internet?</p></div><p>I'll let you in on a secret that will blow your mind: I talked to a neighbor kid the other day - <em>in person!</em>. He was having problems with his calc homework and his dad called to see if I could spare a few minutes to help the boy out.</p><p>Can you imagine? Someone else's child! Right there in my dining room! And we were talking like peers without the benefit of being separated by a cinder block wall and razor wire!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why would an adult need to communicate with someone else 's child over the internet ? I 'll let you in on a secret that will blow your mind : I talked to a neighbor kid the other day - in person ! .
He was having problems with his calc homework and his dad called to see if I could spare a few minutes to help the boy out.Can you imagine ?
Someone else 's child !
Right there in my dining room !
And we were talking like peers without the benefit of being separated by a cinder block wall and razor wire !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why would an adult need to communicate with someone else's child over the internet?I'll let you in on a secret that will blow your mind: I talked to a neighbor kid the other day - in person!.
He was having problems with his calc homework and his dad called to see if I could spare a few minutes to help the boy out.Can you imagine?
Someone else's child!
Right there in my dining room!
And we were talking like peers without the benefit of being separated by a cinder block wall and razor wire!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352280</id>
	<title>I had a friend...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1260198120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a friend once that was caught by the police, but under extremely specific circumstances, and did not go to jail, although the police threatened to put him on some sort of watch list, even though it was all very overblown.<br>MSN is not just for kids, you can not call it a teen social network, EVERYone uses it these days.</p><p>He happened to be on a group forum of some type, and ended up chatting with this perticular adult(?) seeing as when he asked what age she was, she had said she was 19 going on 20 ( I have to admit it was pretty young even for me...)<br>but legal, so he continued to converse with her, and then after some online courting (if you can call it that) that lasted a few weeks<br>he was asking to meet her in person to go for a date or something.</p><p>I guess the parents were not all that trusting of their daughter and went and followed her to her rendezvous, this in turn lead to them<br>calling the police when they met my friend who recently turned 30. Apparently she had lied about her age and was 13, but he would not even had known that without at least meeting her first to be then able to deal with her lie.</p><p>Long story short, the cops came he explained to the parents and the cops about how he met her online in some place and asked her her age, and luckily she was not that dishonest to lie to everyone, she admitted to saying she was older then she really was.<br>The cops tries to put some fear into him (wrongly) by telling him about these lists that online predators are kept a close eye with.</p><p>I worked as a bouncer in a club where these very young and under aged girls would always offer themselves to be able to earn their<br>weekly pass into the clubs, and trust me, some really did look much older then they were. At some point you have to realize, they are smart enough to play the game, of lying to get what they want, even sleep around if they can at least get in every Friday into the hotspot club of the town, get fake id etc, etc...</p><p>It is up to the parents to be more attentive into their kids lives and be more a part of it then one day just wake up and get smacked in the face with reality that their kid is sexually active, or a drug addict, or gay or being bullied at school, or....the list goes on.<br>The parents need to be a little more about the kids and less about themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a friend once that was caught by the police , but under extremely specific circumstances , and did not go to jail , although the police threatened to put him on some sort of watch list , even though it was all very overblown.MSN is not just for kids , you can not call it a teen social network , EVERYone uses it these days.He happened to be on a group forum of some type , and ended up chatting with this perticular adult ( ?
) seeing as when he asked what age she was , she had said she was 19 going on 20 ( I have to admit it was pretty young even for me... ) but legal , so he continued to converse with her , and then after some online courting ( if you can call it that ) that lasted a few weekshe was asking to meet her in person to go for a date or something.I guess the parents were not all that trusting of their daughter and went and followed her to her rendezvous , this in turn lead to themcalling the police when they met my friend who recently turned 30 .
Apparently she had lied about her age and was 13 , but he would not even had known that without at least meeting her first to be then able to deal with her lie.Long story short , the cops came he explained to the parents and the cops about how he met her online in some place and asked her her age , and luckily she was not that dishonest to lie to everyone , she admitted to saying she was older then she really was.The cops tries to put some fear into him ( wrongly ) by telling him about these lists that online predators are kept a close eye with.I worked as a bouncer in a club where these very young and under aged girls would always offer themselves to be able to earn theirweekly pass into the clubs , and trust me , some really did look much older then they were .
At some point you have to realize , they are smart enough to play the game , of lying to get what they want , even sleep around if they can at least get in every Friday into the hotspot club of the town , get fake id etc , etc...It is up to the parents to be more attentive into their kids lives and be more a part of it then one day just wake up and get smacked in the face with reality that their kid is sexually active , or a drug addict , or gay or being bullied at school , or....the list goes on.The parents need to be a little more about the kids and less about themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a friend once that was caught by the police, but under extremely specific circumstances, and did not go to jail, although the police threatened to put him on some sort of watch list, even though it was all very overblown.MSN is not just for kids, you can not call it a teen social network, EVERYone uses it these days.He happened to be on a group forum of some type, and ended up chatting with this perticular adult(?
) seeing as when he asked what age she was, she had said she was 19 going on 20 ( I have to admit it was pretty young even for me...)but legal, so he continued to converse with her, and then after some online courting (if you can call it that) that lasted a few weekshe was asking to meet her in person to go for a date or something.I guess the parents were not all that trusting of their daughter and went and followed her to her rendezvous, this in turn lead to themcalling the police when they met my friend who recently turned 30.
Apparently she had lied about her age and was 13, but he would not even had known that without at least meeting her first to be then able to deal with her lie.Long story short, the cops came he explained to the parents and the cops about how he met her online in some place and asked her her age, and luckily she was not that dishonest to lie to everyone, she admitted to saying she was older then she really was.The cops tries to put some fear into him (wrongly) by telling him about these lists that online predators are kept a close eye with.I worked as a bouncer in a club where these very young and under aged girls would always offer themselves to be able to earn theirweekly pass into the clubs, and trust me, some really did look much older then they were.
At some point you have to realize, they are smart enough to play the game, of lying to get what they want, even sleep around if they can at least get in every Friday into the hotspot club of the town, get fake id etc, etc...It is up to the parents to be more attentive into their kids lives and be more a part of it then one day just wake up and get smacked in the face with reality that their kid is sexually active, or a drug addict, or gay or being bullied at school, or....the list goes on.The parents need to be a little more about the kids and less about themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353974</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1260205740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't know they're talking to a child. Do you know how old I am without looking at my post just above? I could be 8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't know they 're talking to a child .
Do you know how old I am without looking at my post just above ?
I could be 8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't know they're talking to a child.
Do you know how old I am without looking at my post just above?
I could be 8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353026</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260201660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Hi, I'm 14/f/California.  I love cheerleading and gymnastics.  Do you want to talk to me?  I've been having problems with my boyfriend cuz he wants to sex me and I'd like to know what an older guy thinks"</p></div><p>Hi, I'm 14/f/Salem. I love cooking and being good. Do you want to talk to me? I've been having problems with my friends cuz they want to practice witchcraft and I'd like to know what another person thinks.</p><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hi , I 'm 14/f/California .
I love cheerleading and gymnastics .
Do you want to talk to me ?
I 've been having problems with my boyfriend cuz he wants to sex me and I 'd like to know what an older guy thinks " Hi , I 'm 14/f/Salem .
I love cooking and being good .
Do you want to talk to me ?
I 've been having problems with my friends cuz they want to practice witchcraft and I 'd like to know what another person thinks.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hi, I'm 14/f/California.
I love cheerleading and gymnastics.
Do you want to talk to me?
I've been having problems with my boyfriend cuz he wants to sex me and I'd like to know what an older guy thinks"Hi, I'm 14/f/Salem.
I love cooking and being good.
Do you want to talk to me?
I've been having problems with my friends cuz they want to practice witchcraft and I'd like to know what another person thinks.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353410</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1260203280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this could create a market opportunity for a game that guarantees only people 18+ are playing? Make it a violation of the TOS to allow a minor to use your account and require players to fax/email scanned copies of their driver's license as proof of age. Then if a parent complains to the company about what little Timmy read online, they can shoot back that Timmy was unauthorized to access their servers and is now guilty of a Federal crime himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this could create a market opportunity for a game that guarantees only people 18 + are playing ?
Make it a violation of the TOS to allow a minor to use your account and require players to fax/email scanned copies of their driver 's license as proof of age .
Then if a parent complains to the company about what little Timmy read online , they can shoot back that Timmy was unauthorized to access their servers and is now guilty of a Federal crime himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this could create a market opportunity for a game that guarantees only people 18+ are playing?
Make it a violation of the TOS to allow a minor to use your account and require players to fax/email scanned copies of their driver's license as proof of age.
Then if a parent complains to the company about what little Timmy read online, they can shoot back that Timmy was unauthorized to access their servers and is now guilty of a Federal crime himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770</id>
	<title>Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see it now, people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like "suck my balls" to their opponents in a Call of Duty multiplayer match only to find out they're underage, even though the kids shouldn't legally be playing the game in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see it now , people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like " suck my balls " to their opponents in a Call of Duty multiplayer match only to find out they 're underage , even though the kids should n't legally be playing the game in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see it now, people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like "suck my balls" to their opponents in a Call of Duty multiplayer match only to find out they're underage, even though the kids shouldn't legally be playing the game in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353448</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>jenningsthecat</author>
	<datestamp>1260203460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We Canadians ARE nice and sensible! Unfortunately, our politicians and lawmakers aren't...

In fact, as a country we're positively undone by being 'nice'; if we were the kind of people to have blood running in the streets, we wouldn't have such gits as politicians and lawmakers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We Canadians ARE nice and sensible !
Unfortunately , our politicians and lawmakers are n't.. . In fact , as a country we 're positively undone by being 'nice ' ; if we were the kind of people to have blood running in the streets , we would n't have such gits as politicians and lawmakers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We Canadians ARE nice and sensible!
Unfortunately, our politicians and lawmakers aren't...

In fact, as a country we're positively undone by being 'nice'; if we were the kind of people to have blood running in the streets, we wouldn't have such gits as politicians and lawmakers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351966</id>
	<title>I have children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two kids and this is one of those well intentioned potentially good laws. I would want my kids protected as much as possible while they are online, and in "real" life.</p><p>I do think though that this is like the death penalty - it is approached from the wrong end, take the death penalty as a metaphor for this law: (I copied this verbatim from a post on the death of the DC sniper over at godgab.org)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think when people thing "deterrence" they think to far up the chain of human reasoning.</p><p>Death penalty or lifelong imprisonment are likely consequences of getting found guilty, and getting found guilty is a likely consequence of getting caught.</p><p>So for the average person the death penalty or lifelong imprisonment does not factor in their thinking when committing a crime, they think "will I get caught?"</p><p>Increasing the possibility of getting caught will have a greater impact on a person's decision to commit a crime than would increasing the possibility of getting the death penalty.</p><p>You see, if a person has a reasonable expectation that they will not get caught after committing a crime, the threat of death upon getting caught does not factor in their thinking. It's almost like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. There is a hierarchy in every person's chain of thought, and the same holds for a criminal.</p><p>I would suggest loosely that it goes something like this:</p><p>Commit crime:</p><p>1. What stops me from committing it in society? (Is crime acceptable in society? What will the societal impact be of being a known criminal? Do I need to commit a crime to survive/fulfil my needs/etc? Has a demographic engendered hate in me (i.e. racism) that I want to commit a crime against them (i.e. murder))<br>2. What stops me from committing it in this situation? (Security measures, time of day, my immediate needs etc.)<br>3. What is the likelihood of me being caught? (Effective policing, alert population)<br>4. What is likely to happen if I get caught during the act? (Is my victim armed, are there others close by to help the victim?)<br>5. What is likely to happen if I get caught after the fact? (Effective legal system)<br>6. What is my likely punishment? (Life in prison, death penalty?)</p><p>So you see, I think the death penalty or not argument is a waste of time. The problem of crime should be approached in a hierarchy from the basic deterrents to the eventual punishment. The punishment alone is not a deterrent, and will never be unless the other pieces of the puzzle have been filled in.</p></div><p>So there you have it. Writing new laws to threaten pedophiles with has no bearing on the crime if there is no reasonable expectation of getting caught. That said, protecting my kids begins with my parenting - if I sit back and let laws do my parenting then I am just as culpable if they get hurt as the person who hurts them, my kids are my responsibility after all, I need to take their well-being to heart and not expect government to do my job for me. Sure laws are necessary, and government obviously has a role to play in the well-being of my kids, but the buck stops with me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two kids and this is one of those well intentioned potentially good laws .
I would want my kids protected as much as possible while they are online , and in " real " life.I do think though that this is like the death penalty - it is approached from the wrong end , take the death penalty as a metaphor for this law : ( I copied this verbatim from a post on the death of the DC sniper over at godgab.org ) I think when people thing " deterrence " they think to far up the chain of human reasoning.Death penalty or lifelong imprisonment are likely consequences of getting found guilty , and getting found guilty is a likely consequence of getting caught.So for the average person the death penalty or lifelong imprisonment does not factor in their thinking when committing a crime , they think " will I get caught ?
" Increasing the possibility of getting caught will have a greater impact on a person 's decision to commit a crime than would increasing the possibility of getting the death penalty.You see , if a person has a reasonable expectation that they will not get caught after committing a crime , the threat of death upon getting caught does not factor in their thinking .
It 's almost like Maslow 's hierarchy of needs .
There is a hierarchy in every person 's chain of thought , and the same holds for a criminal.I would suggest loosely that it goes something like this : Commit crime : 1 .
What stops me from committing it in society ?
( Is crime acceptable in society ?
What will the societal impact be of being a known criminal ?
Do I need to commit a crime to survive/fulfil my needs/etc ?
Has a demographic engendered hate in me ( i.e .
racism ) that I want to commit a crime against them ( i.e .
murder ) ) 2. What stops me from committing it in this situation ?
( Security measures , time of day , my immediate needs etc. ) 3 .
What is the likelihood of me being caught ?
( Effective policing , alert population ) 4 .
What is likely to happen if I get caught during the act ?
( Is my victim armed , are there others close by to help the victim ? ) 5 .
What is likely to happen if I get caught after the fact ?
( Effective legal system ) 6 .
What is my likely punishment ?
( Life in prison , death penalty ?
) So you see , I think the death penalty or not argument is a waste of time .
The problem of crime should be approached in a hierarchy from the basic deterrents to the eventual punishment .
The punishment alone is not a deterrent , and will never be unless the other pieces of the puzzle have been filled in.So there you have it .
Writing new laws to threaten pedophiles with has no bearing on the crime if there is no reasonable expectation of getting caught .
That said , protecting my kids begins with my parenting - if I sit back and let laws do my parenting then I am just as culpable if they get hurt as the person who hurts them , my kids are my responsibility after all , I need to take their well-being to heart and not expect government to do my job for me .
Sure laws are necessary , and government obviously has a role to play in the well-being of my kids , but the buck stops with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two kids and this is one of those well intentioned potentially good laws.
I would want my kids protected as much as possible while they are online, and in "real" life.I do think though that this is like the death penalty - it is approached from the wrong end, take the death penalty as a metaphor for this law: (I copied this verbatim from a post on the death of the DC sniper over at godgab.org)I think when people thing "deterrence" they think to far up the chain of human reasoning.Death penalty or lifelong imprisonment are likely consequences of getting found guilty, and getting found guilty is a likely consequence of getting caught.So for the average person the death penalty or lifelong imprisonment does not factor in their thinking when committing a crime, they think "will I get caught?
"Increasing the possibility of getting caught will have a greater impact on a person's decision to commit a crime than would increasing the possibility of getting the death penalty.You see, if a person has a reasonable expectation that they will not get caught after committing a crime, the threat of death upon getting caught does not factor in their thinking.
It's almost like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
There is a hierarchy in every person's chain of thought, and the same holds for a criminal.I would suggest loosely that it goes something like this:Commit crime:1.
What stops me from committing it in society?
(Is crime acceptable in society?
What will the societal impact be of being a known criminal?
Do I need to commit a crime to survive/fulfil my needs/etc?
Has a demographic engendered hate in me (i.e.
racism) that I want to commit a crime against them (i.e.
murder))2. What stops me from committing it in this situation?
(Security measures, time of day, my immediate needs etc.)3.
What is the likelihood of me being caught?
(Effective policing, alert population)4.
What is likely to happen if I get caught during the act?
(Is my victim armed, are there others close by to help the victim?)5.
What is likely to happen if I get caught after the fact?
(Effective legal system)6.
What is my likely punishment?
(Life in prison, death penalty?
)So you see, I think the death penalty or not argument is a waste of time.
The problem of crime should be approached in a hierarchy from the basic deterrents to the eventual punishment.
The punishment alone is not a deterrent, and will never be unless the other pieces of the puzzle have been filled in.So there you have it.
Writing new laws to threaten pedophiles with has no bearing on the crime if there is no reasonable expectation of getting caught.
That said, protecting my kids begins with my parenting - if I sit back and let laws do my parenting then I am just as culpable if they get hurt as the person who hurts them, my kids are my responsibility after all, I need to take their well-being to heart and not expect government to do my job for me.
Sure laws are necessary, and government obviously has a role to play in the well-being of my kids, but the buck stops with me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356362</id>
	<title>it's backwards... kids should get a choice in this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thinking of the children would give them the freedom to decide weather or not they can talk to people. Thinking of the children would give them a choice in the matter, rather than automatically labeling them as victims of crime as soon as they turn on a computer.<br>I personally think that as long as you're over the age of 10, you should be able to understand that people on the internet are rarely who they say they are and should not be trusted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thinking of the children would give them the freedom to decide weather or not they can talk to people .
Thinking of the children would give them a choice in the matter , rather than automatically labeling them as victims of crime as soon as they turn on a computer.I personally think that as long as you 're over the age of 10 , you should be able to understand that people on the internet are rarely who they say they are and should not be trusted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thinking of the children would give them the freedom to decide weather or not they can talk to people.
Thinking of the children would give them a choice in the matter, rather than automatically labeling them as victims of crime as soon as they turn on a computer.I personally think that as long as you're over the age of 10, you should be able to understand that people on the internet are rarely who they say they are and should not be trusted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351894</id>
	<title>Re:More at 11.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260196320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And just to drive the point home, discussing anything that the state or the parents don't want you to discuss with the child is "inappropriate". That means, for example, LGBT issues. This is just another form of child abuse; At least in the USA, children are not even really allowed to own property. You are a non-person until you reach majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And just to drive the point home , discussing anything that the state or the parents do n't want you to discuss with the child is " inappropriate " .
That means , for example , LGBT issues .
This is just another form of child abuse ; At least in the USA , children are not even really allowed to own property .
You are a non-person until you reach majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just to drive the point home, discussing anything that the state or the parents don't want you to discuss with the child is "inappropriate".
That means, for example, LGBT issues.
This is just another form of child abuse; At least in the USA, children are not even really allowed to own property.
You are a non-person until you reach majority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352970</id>
	<title>Re:So I guess double jeopardy...</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1260201300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I guess double jeopardy is okay in Canada?</p></div><p>Well, to be fair, Alex Trebek <i>is</i> one of their biggest stars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess double jeopardy is okay in Canada ? Well , to be fair , Alex Trebek is one of their biggest stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess double jeopardy is okay in Canada?Well, to be fair, Alex Trebek is one of their biggest stars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352836</id>
	<title>Re:go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1260200580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between humans and other animals is that humans are able to see beyond their biological instincts and consider things as they actually are. Perhaps humans are still too primitive to prevent their rational minds from being co-opted by irrational instinctive impulses, which is something I don't see as a sign of strength. Growth lies in the opposite direction, where factual concerns trump irrational and often harmful thoughts such as "let's assume adults who talk to children are all up to no good".</p><p>"Think of the children" belongs in the past. We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between humans and other animals is that humans are able to see beyond their biological instincts and consider things as they actually are .
Perhaps humans are still too primitive to prevent their rational minds from being co-opted by irrational instinctive impulses , which is something I do n't see as a sign of strength .
Growth lies in the opposite direction , where factual concerns trump irrational and often harmful thoughts such as " let 's assume adults who talk to children are all up to no good " .
" Think of the children " belongs in the past .
We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between humans and other animals is that humans are able to see beyond their biological instincts and consider things as they actually are.
Perhaps humans are still too primitive to prevent their rational minds from being co-opted by irrational instinctive impulses, which is something I don't see as a sign of strength.
Growth lies in the opposite direction, where factual concerns trump irrational and often harmful thoughts such as "let's assume adults who talk to children are all up to no good".
"Think of the children" belongs in the past.
We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357224</id>
	<title>Re:It probably won't protect more children</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1260177480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter what the actual case entailed, what matters is the perception surrounding the hoopla.  "protecting the children" has become the modern witch hunt, and while many targets deserve to be targets, there is also a lot of collateral damage going on.  I love kids, but as a gay man, I've avoided having anything to do with them my entire life because of misguided public perception and the fact that a simple accusation is enough to ruin someone's life.  It's just been expanding to encompass the rest of the world over the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter what the actual case entailed , what matters is the perception surrounding the hoopla .
" protecting the children " has become the modern witch hunt , and while many targets deserve to be targets , there is also a lot of collateral damage going on .
I love kids , but as a gay man , I 've avoided having anything to do with them my entire life because of misguided public perception and the fact that a simple accusation is enough to ruin someone 's life .
It 's just been expanding to encompass the rest of the world over the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter what the actual case entailed, what matters is the perception surrounding the hoopla.
"protecting the children" has become the modern witch hunt, and while many targets deserve to be targets, there is also a lot of collateral damage going on.
I love kids, but as a gay man, I've avoided having anything to do with them my entire life because of misguided public perception and the fact that a simple accusation is enough to ruin someone's life.
It's just been expanding to encompass the rest of the world over the last decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30361472</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260205080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...said adult must be up to no good."   Only if that adult is a male....</p><p>The womens lobby reigns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...said adult must be up to no good .
" Only if that adult is a male....The womens lobby reigns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...said adult must be up to no good.
"   Only if that adult is a male....The womens lobby reigns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353228</id>
	<title>This'll Be GREAT for WoW Guilds!</title>
	<author>Toad-san</author>
	<datestamp>1260202500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the reasons I no longer join guilds:  all the kids wanting to (1) be grown up; (2) looking for a Big Brother / Sister or parental substitute; (3) denying they're kids.</p><p>So shame on ya if you're a Cub Scout or Boy Scout leader, eh?</p><p>What an abysmally stupid idea this law is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons I no longer join guilds : all the kids wanting to ( 1 ) be grown up ; ( 2 ) looking for a Big Brother / Sister or parental substitute ; ( 3 ) denying they 're kids.So shame on ya if you 're a Cub Scout or Boy Scout leader , eh ? What an abysmally stupid idea this law is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons I no longer join guilds:  all the kids wanting to (1) be grown up; (2) looking for a Big Brother / Sister or parental substitute; (3) denying they're kids.So shame on ya if you're a Cub Scout or Boy Scout leader, eh?What an abysmally stupid idea this law is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353526</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the day</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1260203880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wish Slashdot had a "nominate for best" button. This post is one of the best examples of what we've lost over the years that I've seen in a while. Kudos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wish Slashdot had a " nominate for best " button .
This post is one of the best examples of what we 've lost over the years that I 've seen in a while .
Kudos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wish Slashdot had a "nominate for best" button.
This post is one of the best examples of what we've lost over the years that I've seen in a while.
Kudos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355560</id>
	<title>12-year old punks!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260212640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean I can get in trouble for telling annoying little kids who do nothing but talk smack and continually stream nonsense and or music where they can stick their rocket launchers and sniper rifles?</p><p>Canadians should cling to their core values and keep the drinking age as low as possible.  Assuming *EVERYONE* talking to kids is a perverted pred makes me hate Canada more than I already do... The US should just get it over with and invade the damn country... May I suggest opening with ICBM missle attacks and cluster bombings of all french speaking provinces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I can get in trouble for telling annoying little kids who do nothing but talk smack and continually stream nonsense and or music where they can stick their rocket launchers and sniper rifles ? Canadians should cling to their core values and keep the drinking age as low as possible .
Assuming * EVERYONE * talking to kids is a perverted pred makes me hate Canada more than I already do... The US should just get it over with and invade the damn country... May I suggest opening with ICBM missle attacks and cluster bombings of all french speaking provinces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I can get in trouble for telling annoying little kids who do nothing but talk smack and continually stream nonsense and or music where they can stick their rocket launchers and sniper rifles?Canadians should cling to their core values and keep the drinking age as low as possible.
Assuming *EVERYONE* talking to kids is a perverted pred makes me hate Canada more than I already do... The US should just get it over with and invade the damn country... May I suggest opening with ICBM missle attacks and cluster bombings of all french speaking provinces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354962</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>AGMW</author>
	<datestamp>1260209700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely. That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.</p></div><p>
Surely the only logical solution is to have a Paedophiles only Internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely .
That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws .
Surely the only logical solution is to have a Paedophiles only Internet .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely.
That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.
Surely the only logical solution is to have a Paedophiles only Internet ...

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354784</id>
	<title>re: Why would  an adult talk to a child</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly the average poster's demographic is a 20 year old "child" or an adult who has spend most of his life living in his mother's basement.</p><p>The reason we have laws to protect children online is because children lack the judgment to discern the hallmarks of a dangerous situation from a benign one. You can't trust a child to know what is safe or to make safe decisions. You also can't trust what a child says - "My parents hate me" might really mean that they took away his Wii because he had bad grades. Certainly the greater responsibility is on the parents, but adults online should be aware of the potential dangers posed by online predators as well.  Most parents, if they are diligent, monitor their kid's Internet use and if they do allow their children to play online games, disable all of the chat features that would allow a potential predator to strike up a relationship with a child.  Unfortunately, many parents don't do this - but the children should not have to pay for their parent's lack of judgment.</p><p>Except under exceptional circumstances, random adults have no  purpose in talking to someone else's child without the consent of their responsible adult.   Would you walk up to a random child in a mall and strike up a conversation?  Unless their was a good reason - i.e. the child appeared lost and was crying, etc., if you did that to one of my kids I'd put a stop to it immediately and notify security of a potential predator.  This happens all the time in the real world (i.e. outside of your mother's basement) - usually it is just some well meaning grandmother who grew up in a different era and wants to give a toddler a peanut butter cookie (causing instant anaphylaxis and a mad rush for the epi-pen), but sometimes the intent is more sinister.</p><p>A conversation needn't be sexual to be predatory.  Some freak in Michigan (IIRC) posing as a teenage girl on a suicide help forum, talked a young woman in Ontario into committing suicide.  In this case, it didn't involve a child, and unfortunately, there are no laws against what this bastard did, but it is not hard to extrapolate from these types of situations if an adult (albeit depressed) can be so impressionable, what might happen to a child in similar situations.</p><p>Oh - and for whomever asked the question.   Double Jeopardy is protected under the Canadian Constitution, however it only applies after the judgment is final (final conviction or acquittal).  The Crown can appeal an acquittal in an error of law has been made, the judgment can be set aside and a new trial ordered.  This is not considered double jeopardy because the judgment was not final.  This is also the manner in which double jeopardy is implemented in the UK, France, Germany and many other nations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly the average poster 's demographic is a 20 year old " child " or an adult who has spend most of his life living in his mother 's basement.The reason we have laws to protect children online is because children lack the judgment to discern the hallmarks of a dangerous situation from a benign one .
You ca n't trust a child to know what is safe or to make safe decisions .
You also ca n't trust what a child says - " My parents hate me " might really mean that they took away his Wii because he had bad grades .
Certainly the greater responsibility is on the parents , but adults online should be aware of the potential dangers posed by online predators as well .
Most parents , if they are diligent , monitor their kid 's Internet use and if they do allow their children to play online games , disable all of the chat features that would allow a potential predator to strike up a relationship with a child .
Unfortunately , many parents do n't do this - but the children should not have to pay for their parent 's lack of judgment.Except under exceptional circumstances , random adults have no purpose in talking to someone else 's child without the consent of their responsible adult .
Would you walk up to a random child in a mall and strike up a conversation ?
Unless their was a good reason - i.e .
the child appeared lost and was crying , etc. , if you did that to one of my kids I 'd put a stop to it immediately and notify security of a potential predator .
This happens all the time in the real world ( i.e .
outside of your mother 's basement ) - usually it is just some well meaning grandmother who grew up in a different era and wants to give a toddler a peanut butter cookie ( causing instant anaphylaxis and a mad rush for the epi-pen ) , but sometimes the intent is more sinister.A conversation need n't be sexual to be predatory .
Some freak in Michigan ( IIRC ) posing as a teenage girl on a suicide help forum , talked a young woman in Ontario into committing suicide .
In this case , it did n't involve a child , and unfortunately , there are no laws against what this bastard did , but it is not hard to extrapolate from these types of situations if an adult ( albeit depressed ) can be so impressionable , what might happen to a child in similar situations.Oh - and for whomever asked the question .
Double Jeopardy is protected under the Canadian Constitution , however it only applies after the judgment is final ( final conviction or acquittal ) .
The Crown can appeal an acquittal in an error of law has been made , the judgment can be set aside and a new trial ordered .
This is not considered double jeopardy because the judgment was not final .
This is also the manner in which double jeopardy is implemented in the UK , France , Germany and many other nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly the average poster's demographic is a 20 year old "child" or an adult who has spend most of his life living in his mother's basement.The reason we have laws to protect children online is because children lack the judgment to discern the hallmarks of a dangerous situation from a benign one.
You can't trust a child to know what is safe or to make safe decisions.
You also can't trust what a child says - "My parents hate me" might really mean that they took away his Wii because he had bad grades.
Certainly the greater responsibility is on the parents, but adults online should be aware of the potential dangers posed by online predators as well.
Most parents, if they are diligent, monitor their kid's Internet use and if they do allow their children to play online games, disable all of the chat features that would allow a potential predator to strike up a relationship with a child.
Unfortunately, many parents don't do this - but the children should not have to pay for their parent's lack of judgment.Except under exceptional circumstances, random adults have no  purpose in talking to someone else's child without the consent of their responsible adult.
Would you walk up to a random child in a mall and strike up a conversation?
Unless their was a good reason - i.e.
the child appeared lost and was crying, etc., if you did that to one of my kids I'd put a stop to it immediately and notify security of a potential predator.
This happens all the time in the real world (i.e.
outside of your mother's basement) - usually it is just some well meaning grandmother who grew up in a different era and wants to give a toddler a peanut butter cookie (causing instant anaphylaxis and a mad rush for the epi-pen), but sometimes the intent is more sinister.A conversation needn't be sexual to be predatory.
Some freak in Michigan (IIRC) posing as a teenage girl on a suicide help forum, talked a young woman in Ontario into committing suicide.
In this case, it didn't involve a child, and unfortunately, there are no laws against what this bastard did, but it is not hard to extrapolate from these types of situations if an adult (albeit depressed) can be so impressionable, what might happen to a child in similar situations.Oh - and for whomever asked the question.
Double Jeopardy is protected under the Canadian Constitution, however it only applies after the judgment is final (final conviction or acquittal).
The Crown can appeal an acquittal in an error of law has been made, the judgment can be set aside and a new trial ordered.
This is not considered double jeopardy because the judgment was not final.
This is also the manner in which double jeopardy is implemented in the UK, France, Germany and many other nations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352548</id>
	<title>Re:probably no need to worry</title>
	<author>jareds</author>
	<datestamp>1260199260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jesus fucking Christ.  Why not just pass a law that, "It shall be an offense against the United States to bind oxygen to hemoglobin, punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years," and rely on prosecutorial discretion to only punish those who deserve it for some actual reason?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus fucking Christ .
Why not just pass a law that , " It shall be an offense against the United States to bind oxygen to hemoglobin , punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years , " and rely on prosecutorial discretion to only punish those who deserve it for some actual reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus fucking Christ.
Why not just pass a law that, "It shall be an offense against the United States to bind oxygen to hemoglobin, punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years," and rely on prosecutorial discretion to only punish those who deserve it for some actual reason?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352672</id>
	<title>Re:probably no need to worry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260199800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I love inflammatory comments as much as the next<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er, but I can't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody.</p> </div><p>Yeah, good point.  It's nice to have some extra laws around so the government has something to  prosecute people the government doesn't like, but of course they would never actually <i>use</i> those laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love inflammatory comments as much as the next /.er , but I ca n't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody .
Yeah , good point .
It 's nice to have some extra laws around so the government has something to prosecute people the government does n't like , but of course they would never actually use those laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love inflammatory comments as much as the next /.er, but I can't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody.
Yeah, good point.
It's nice to have some extra laws around so the government has something to  prosecute people the government doesn't like, but of course they would never actually use those laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30362458</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>shugah</author>
	<datestamp>1260215640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No - but you can be executed an later found innocent.
<br> <br>
Ruins your whole day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No - but you can be executed an later found innocent .
Ruins your whole day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No - but you can be executed an later found innocent.
Ruins your whole day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352170</id>
	<title>Braindead justice</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1260197700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics."</p></div></blockquote><p>How many people are going to be arrested for asking children about their "personal interests or other innocuous topics" on the grounds that the person asking the questions <i>might</i> perhaps turn out to be a pedophile?</p><blockquote><div><p>"[The law] makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences."</p><p>...</p><p>He said the new Internet luring law "criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of the sexual offences."</p></div></blockquote><p>How do you establish the adult's intentions unless the adult has expressed a desire to commit an offense against the child, thus not requiring the broader interpretation of the law? The way the judge's decision is described, it would seem it isn't necessary to establish criminal intent, thus making people liable for conversations that are truly innocent.</p><p>There's often been an air of paranoia around many of the laws that are supposed to address the online victimization of children, but this one is about the most ridiculous I've seen. Idiots at the helm is all I can say.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life , their personal interests or other innocuous topics .
" How many people are going to be arrested for asking children about their " personal interests or other innocuous topics " on the grounds that the person asking the questions might perhaps turn out to be a pedophile ?
" [ The law ] makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences .
" ...He said the new Internet luring law " criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of the sexual offences .
" How do you establish the adult 's intentions unless the adult has expressed a desire to commit an offense against the child , thus not requiring the broader interpretation of the law ?
The way the judge 's decision is described , it would seem it is n't necessary to establish criminal intent , thus making people liable for conversations that are truly innocent.There 's often been an air of paranoia around many of the laws that are supposed to address the online victimization of children , but this one is about the most ridiculous I 've seen .
Idiots at the helm is all I can say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics.
"How many people are going to be arrested for asking children about their "personal interests or other innocuous topics" on the grounds that the person asking the questions might perhaps turn out to be a pedophile?
"[The law] makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences.
"...He said the new Internet luring law "criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of the sexual offences.
"How do you establish the adult's intentions unless the adult has expressed a desire to commit an offense against the child, thus not requiring the broader interpretation of the law?
The way the judge's decision is described, it would seem it isn't necessary to establish criminal intent, thus making people liable for conversations that are truly innocent.There's often been an air of paranoia around many of the laws that are supposed to address the online victimization of children, but this one is about the most ridiculous I've seen.
Idiots at the helm is all I can say.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</id>
	<title>why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>other than situations where they answer the phone and you ask to speak to their parents or they are visiting your kids. why would an adult need to communicate with someone else's child over the internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>other than situations where they answer the phone and you ask to speak to their parents or they are visiting your kids .
why would an adult need to communicate with someone else 's child over the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>other than situations where they answer the phone and you ask to speak to their parents or they are visiting your kids.
why would an adult need to communicate with someone else's child over the internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357164</id>
	<title>Re:It probably won't protect more children</title>
	<author>JobyKSU</author>
	<datestamp>1260177180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> but this Canadian case seems to be about "the evil scum didn't commit an offence! We must create one so that in future similar evil scum can be charged with something!"</p></div><p>Did you read TFA? The man had cybersex and phone sex with a 12 year old girl. He was acquitted because he said he hadn't made plans to meet her (yet?). That definitely does not qualify as not committing an offence - the question at hand was "which offence."
<br>
The original judge took a narrow view of the law, which I'm a fan of. Upon review, the appeals court clarified the need for concrete plans to meet.
<br> <br>
The discussion on conversations not needing to be sexual in nature is taken from one of the Justice's comments that non-sexual conversations are often the precursor to trust and a physical meeting. Justice Fish specifically stated that an "intent to meet" must also exist in these situations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but this Canadian case seems to be about " the evil scum did n't commit an offence !
We must create one so that in future similar evil scum can be charged with something !
" Did you read TFA ?
The man had cybersex and phone sex with a 12 year old girl .
He was acquitted because he said he had n't made plans to meet her ( yet ? ) .
That definitely does not qualify as not committing an offence - the question at hand was " which offence .
" The original judge took a narrow view of the law , which I 'm a fan of .
Upon review , the appeals court clarified the need for concrete plans to meet .
The discussion on conversations not needing to be sexual in nature is taken from one of the Justice 's comments that non-sexual conversations are often the precursor to trust and a physical meeting .
Justice Fish specifically stated that an " intent to meet " must also exist in these situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> but this Canadian case seems to be about "the evil scum didn't commit an offence!
We must create one so that in future similar evil scum can be charged with something!
"Did you read TFA?
The man had cybersex and phone sex with a 12 year old girl.
He was acquitted because he said he hadn't made plans to meet her (yet?).
That definitely does not qualify as not committing an offence - the question at hand was "which offence.
"

The original judge took a narrow view of the law, which I'm a fan of.
Upon review, the appeals court clarified the need for concrete plans to meet.
The discussion on conversations not needing to be sexual in nature is taken from one of the Justice's comments that non-sexual conversations are often the precursor to trust and a physical meeting.
Justice Fish specifically stated that an "intent to meet" must also exist in these situations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355494</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1260212220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Bill of Rights was largely written as a reaction to how things worked under British rule.  Canadians have different (read: fewer meaningful) rights than USA citizens do largely because of how independence came about in each nation.  The USA fought a long, bloody war for independence and then set up a Constitution with part of its purpose being to protect against having to do so again.  On the other side of the coin, Britain basically got bored with Canada after beaver-pelt hats went out of style, and then realized what a nuisance Quebec really is and just let them be independent.  Not having fought for their rights, Canadians are more or less content having none.
<br> <br>
I didn't RTFA so I can't say if this is a case of double jeopardy or not.  But Canada is a thought-crime country.  For instance, it's already a criminal act in Canada to be a racist, as far as I can tell.  Being tried 30 times for misspelling 'bro' as 'bra' when asking a 17-year-old if her brother was home from college for the holidays wouldn't really surprise me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bill of Rights was largely written as a reaction to how things worked under British rule .
Canadians have different ( read : fewer meaningful ) rights than USA citizens do largely because of how independence came about in each nation .
The USA fought a long , bloody war for independence and then set up a Constitution with part of its purpose being to protect against having to do so again .
On the other side of the coin , Britain basically got bored with Canada after beaver-pelt hats went out of style , and then realized what a nuisance Quebec really is and just let them be independent .
Not having fought for their rights , Canadians are more or less content having none .
I did n't RTFA so I ca n't say if this is a case of double jeopardy or not .
But Canada is a thought-crime country .
For instance , it 's already a criminal act in Canada to be a racist , as far as I can tell .
Being tried 30 times for misspelling 'bro ' as 'bra ' when asking a 17-year-old if her brother was home from college for the holidays would n't really surprise me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bill of Rights was largely written as a reaction to how things worked under British rule.
Canadians have different (read: fewer meaningful) rights than USA citizens do largely because of how independence came about in each nation.
The USA fought a long, bloody war for independence and then set up a Constitution with part of its purpose being to protect against having to do so again.
On the other side of the coin, Britain basically got bored with Canada after beaver-pelt hats went out of style, and then realized what a nuisance Quebec really is and just let them be independent.
Not having fought for their rights, Canadians are more or less content having none.
I didn't RTFA so I can't say if this is a case of double jeopardy or not.
But Canada is a thought-crime country.
For instance, it's already a criminal act in Canada to be a racist, as far as I can tell.
Being tried 30 times for misspelling 'bro' as 'bra' when asking a 17-year-old if her brother was home from college for the holidays wouldn't really surprise me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353706</id>
	<title>Re:More at 11.</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1260204720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A worldwide shift back to the "Seen, but not heard," philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.</i></p><p>ruins it for children.</p><p>the rest of us <b>REJOICE</b> in the new-found silence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A worldwide shift back to the " Seen , but not heard , " philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.ruins it for children.the rest of us REJOICE in the new-found silence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A worldwide shift back to the "Seen, but not heard," philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.ruins it for children.the rest of us REJOICE in the new-found silence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352306</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260198300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given more than 1 minute to think about it... it would kill net neutrality and end horribly for us all. So instead, fuck all the think of the children scare mongers. Lets start suing parents that let their kids be endangered. Or have the municipality take the kids away citing child endangerment.<br> <br>I wonder if this would open adults to using their children as bait hoping to get settlements. Like the MJ case... where the father made his kid lie about MJ so that he could get a big wad of cash. (Has been admitted since MJs death). All you'd have to do is have your kid go in a chatroom and pretend to be a 19yr old slut, you could prolly sue 20 people a day...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given more than 1 minute to think about it... it would kill net neutrality and end horribly for us all .
So instead , fuck all the think of the children scare mongers .
Lets start suing parents that let their kids be endangered .
Or have the municipality take the kids away citing child endangerment .
I wonder if this would open adults to using their children as bait hoping to get settlements .
Like the MJ case... where the father made his kid lie about MJ so that he could get a big wad of cash .
( Has been admitted since MJs death ) .
All you 'd have to do is have your kid go in a chatroom and pretend to be a 19yr old slut , you could prolly sue 20 people a day.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given more than 1 minute to think about it... it would kill net neutrality and end horribly for us all.
So instead, fuck all the think of the children scare mongers.
Lets start suing parents that let their kids be endangered.
Or have the municipality take the kids away citing child endangerment.
I wonder if this would open adults to using their children as bait hoping to get settlements.
Like the MJ case... where the father made his kid lie about MJ so that he could get a big wad of cash.
(Has been admitted since MJs death).
All you'd have to do is have your kid go in a chatroom and pretend to be a 19yr old slut, you could prolly sue 20 people a day...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352190</id>
	<title>Ban them, all of them.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1260197760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not ban kids altogether from the internet? That would do both the kids, their parents and the rest of the internet a big service. The kids would be outside more, the parents would have to talk to their kids and the internet would be a much nicer place.</p><p>If the internet is such an unsafe place and the parents wont supervise their kids they shouldn't be online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ban kids altogether from the internet ?
That would do both the kids , their parents and the rest of the internet a big service .
The kids would be outside more , the parents would have to talk to their kids and the internet would be a much nicer place.If the internet is such an unsafe place and the parents wont supervise their kids they should n't be online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not ban kids altogether from the internet?
That would do both the kids, their parents and the rest of the internet a big service.
The kids would be outside more, the parents would have to talk to their kids and the internet would be a much nicer place.If the internet is such an unsafe place and the parents wont supervise their kids they shouldn't be online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353382</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1260203220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WTF Canadians? I thought you people were nice and sensible!?</p></div><p>What kind of fairy tale world do you live in? They may be nice on the surface, but behind their nice and sensible facade, they're just bastards. In Canada you can get jailed for 3 months for revealing that a homeless shelter throws away bread.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF Canadians ?
I thought you people were nice and sensible !
? What kind of fairy tale world do you live in ?
They may be nice on the surface , but behind their nice and sensible facade , they 're just bastards .
In Canada you can get jailed for 3 months for revealing that a homeless shelter throws away bread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF Canadians?
I thought you people were nice and sensible!
?What kind of fairy tale world do you live in?
They may be nice on the surface, but behind their nice and sensible facade, they're just bastards.
In Canada you can get jailed for 3 months for revealing that a homeless shelter throws away bread.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352372</id>
	<title>Re:Take the full step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260198480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the money in that? You'd eliminate both the boogie-man and the helpless victim at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the money in that ?
You 'd eliminate both the boogie-man and the helpless victim at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the money in that?
You'd eliminate both the boogie-man and the helpless victim at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358836</id>
	<title>Re:It probably won't protect more children</title>
	<author>IshmaelDS</author>
	<datestamp>1260186420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the ruling as well and while I agree it was a clarification and not a new law there are a few things about the wording that bother me.  For instance the part where it states "The offender need not meet or intend to meet the victim with a view to committing any of the specified secondary offences.  &ldquo;Facilitating&rdquo;, in this context, includes helping to bring about and making easier or more probable.  "(now this seemed to be contradicted later in the ruling where it stated "  What matters is whether the evidence as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused communicated by computer with an underage person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence in respect of that person.  [42]" so I'm not sure which part the judge would have to pay attention to as IANAL.  But if they only have to listen to the first part that is indeed troubling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the ruling as well and while I agree it was a clarification and not a new law there are a few things about the wording that bother me .
For instance the part where it states " The offender need not meet or intend to meet the victim with a view to committing any of the specified secondary offences .
   Facilitating    , in this context , includes helping to bring about and making easier or more probable .
" ( now this seemed to be contradicted later in the ruling where it stated " What matters is whether the evidence as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused communicated by computer with an underage person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence in respect of that person .
[ 42 ] " so I 'm not sure which part the judge would have to pay attention to as IANAL .
But if they only have to listen to the first part that is indeed troubling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the ruling as well and while I agree it was a clarification and not a new law there are a few things about the wording that bother me.
For instance the part where it states "The offender need not meet or intend to meet the victim with a view to committing any of the specified secondary offences.
“Facilitating”, in this context, includes helping to bring about and making easier or more probable.
"(now this seemed to be contradicted later in the ruling where it stated "  What matters is whether the evidence as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused communicated by computer with an underage person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence in respect of that person.
[42]" so I'm not sure which part the judge would have to pay attention to as IANAL.
But if they only have to listen to the first part that is indeed troubling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351876</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1260196200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about they make a law stating that parents who let their kids get on these chat pages/programs unsupervised get publically flogged.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about they make a law stating that parents who let their kids get on these chat pages/programs unsupervised get publically flogged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about they make a law stating that parents who let their kids get on these chat pages/programs unsupervised get publically flogged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356678</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the day</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1260218220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to hang out on IRC back in the day as a compliment to my online gaming.  Anyone remember Kali?  Anyway, we would chat in IRC for much the same reasons as you cite.  We had members from Australia and Germany, and a smattering of Japanese and other Europeans.  There were some serious coming of age angst type conversations across generational lines (guess where socially awkward geek teens felt most comfortable?).  Flash forward 16 years and I would not even think of engaging in any sort of real time online conversation with someone I suspected was underage.  Hysteria brought us here.  And the fact that IRC is so 90's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to hang out on IRC back in the day as a compliment to my online gaming .
Anyone remember Kali ?
Anyway , we would chat in IRC for much the same reasons as you cite .
We had members from Australia and Germany , and a smattering of Japanese and other Europeans .
There were some serious coming of age angst type conversations across generational lines ( guess where socially awkward geek teens felt most comfortable ? ) .
Flash forward 16 years and I would not even think of engaging in any sort of real time online conversation with someone I suspected was underage .
Hysteria brought us here .
And the fact that IRC is so 90 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to hang out on IRC back in the day as a compliment to my online gaming.
Anyone remember Kali?
Anyway, we would chat in IRC for much the same reasons as you cite.
We had members from Australia and Germany, and a smattering of Japanese and other Europeans.
There were some serious coming of age angst type conversations across generational lines (guess where socially awkward geek teens felt most comfortable?).
Flash forward 16 years and I would not even think of engaging in any sort of real time online conversation with someone I suspected was underage.
Hysteria brought us here.
And the fact that IRC is so 90's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354588</id>
	<title>Re:More at 11.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1260208200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, wait, wait. No court has ruled that talking to children online is illegal, the story summary is incorrect. They've interpreted luring to include sexual conversations with children. That's not an unreasonable step.</p><p>The article states that "Beyond Borders," a dedicated "think of the children" organization were the ones who said that any conversation with children online would be illegal. Lucky for everyone, Beyond Borders doesn't set precedent, the courts do. The precedent that was set pertains to a particular case in which someone had sexually explicit conversations with a 12 year old. I think inciting an inappropriate conversation like that is an example of luring and absolutely should be illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , wait , wait .
No court has ruled that talking to children online is illegal , the story summary is incorrect .
They 've interpreted luring to include sexual conversations with children .
That 's not an unreasonable step.The article states that " Beyond Borders , " a dedicated " think of the children " organization were the ones who said that any conversation with children online would be illegal .
Lucky for everyone , Beyond Borders does n't set precedent , the courts do .
The precedent that was set pertains to a particular case in which someone had sexually explicit conversations with a 12 year old .
I think inciting an inappropriate conversation like that is an example of luring and absolutely should be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, wait, wait.
No court has ruled that talking to children online is illegal, the story summary is incorrect.
They've interpreted luring to include sexual conversations with children.
That's not an unreasonable step.The article states that "Beyond Borders," a dedicated "think of the children" organization were the ones who said that any conversation with children online would be illegal.
Lucky for everyone, Beyond Borders doesn't set precedent, the courts do.
The precedent that was set pertains to a particular case in which someone had sexually explicit conversations with a 12 year old.
I think inciting an inappropriate conversation like that is an example of luring and absolutely should be illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976</id>
	<title>Re:It probably won't protect more children</title>
	<author>Mr. Shiny And New</author>
	<datestamp>1260201360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the ruling.  There is an actual offence which was committed.  It is against the law (a law passed by parliament) to communicate with a child under 14 (at the time this offence took place the law said 14) for the purposes of facilitating a secondary crime such as abduction or a sex crime or a child porn crime.</p><p>The accused admits to have had sexual conversations with the child who had represented herself as 13 (she was 12).  The accused admits that he stated a desire to have oral sex with the girl.  He denies any desire to actually meet the girl or to actually have sex with her or to actually abduct her or to actually get dirty pictures of her or whatever.</p><p>The trial court ruled that since he didn't want to meet her he wasn't facilitating a crime.</p><p>The supreme court ruled that "facilitating" means, among other things, "making easier" or "making possible" or "making more possible" the acts in question.  So there is a question about whether or not he "facilitated" under the terms of the law.</p><p>Thus the accused will receive a new trial.</p><p>So there WAS a law and it sounds like he did break it.  This is not a new law.  This is a clarification of the wording of the old law.  The sticky point seems to be that facilitating merely involves gaining the trust of a child, so any talk which gains the trust of a child could be facilitating.  However it would require a strong burden of evidence to prove that such talk was for facilitating the crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the ruling .
There is an actual offence which was committed .
It is against the law ( a law passed by parliament ) to communicate with a child under 14 ( at the time this offence took place the law said 14 ) for the purposes of facilitating a secondary crime such as abduction or a sex crime or a child porn crime.The accused admits to have had sexual conversations with the child who had represented herself as 13 ( she was 12 ) .
The accused admits that he stated a desire to have oral sex with the girl .
He denies any desire to actually meet the girl or to actually have sex with her or to actually abduct her or to actually get dirty pictures of her or whatever.The trial court ruled that since he did n't want to meet her he was n't facilitating a crime.The supreme court ruled that " facilitating " means , among other things , " making easier " or " making possible " or " making more possible " the acts in question .
So there is a question about whether or not he " facilitated " under the terms of the law.Thus the accused will receive a new trial.So there WAS a law and it sounds like he did break it .
This is not a new law .
This is a clarification of the wording of the old law .
The sticky point seems to be that facilitating merely involves gaining the trust of a child , so any talk which gains the trust of a child could be facilitating .
However it would require a strong burden of evidence to prove that such talk was for facilitating the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the ruling.
There is an actual offence which was committed.
It is against the law (a law passed by parliament) to communicate with a child under 14 (at the time this offence took place the law said 14) for the purposes of facilitating a secondary crime such as abduction or a sex crime or a child porn crime.The accused admits to have had sexual conversations with the child who had represented herself as 13 (she was 12).
The accused admits that he stated a desire to have oral sex with the girl.
He denies any desire to actually meet the girl or to actually have sex with her or to actually abduct her or to actually get dirty pictures of her or whatever.The trial court ruled that since he didn't want to meet her he wasn't facilitating a crime.The supreme court ruled that "facilitating" means, among other things, "making easier" or "making possible" or "making more possible" the acts in question.
So there is a question about whether or not he "facilitated" under the terms of the law.Thus the accused will receive a new trial.So there WAS a law and it sounds like he did break it.
This is not a new law.
This is a clarification of the wording of the old law.
The sticky point seems to be that facilitating merely involves gaining the trust of a child, so any talk which gains the trust of a child could be facilitating.
However it would require a strong burden of evidence to prove that such talk was for facilitating the crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</id>
	<title>Private net</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely. That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely .
That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely.
That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355968</id>
	<title>Re:It probably won't protect more children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260214560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So there WAS a law and it sounds like he did break it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Uh, no.  The law isn't "... communicate with a child under 14 (at the time this offence took place the law said 14) <em>that</em> facilitat[es] a secondary crime<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." but "... communicate with a child under 14 (at the time this offence took place the law said 14) for the purposes of facilitating a secondary crime<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...".  Ie, the intent to facilitate a type of secondary crime mentioned is a critical part of the crime.  If the person in question was merely engaging in cybersex with no intent to commit a kind of secondary crime mentioned, then clearly any of the various interpretations of "facilitate" are irrelevant.</p><p>The fact that the Canada Supreme Court should have the case retried again even though the trial court found the man not guilty based upon his lack of intent strongly implies what the Canada Supreme Court has really done is remove the need for intent.  That's precisely the reason why there's so much ruckus here about their reinterpretation.  After all, basically any communication with a child "facilitates" a secondary crime under their new, broad definition since virtually any communication makes an abduction easier.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So there WAS a law and it sounds like he did break it.Uh , no .
The law is n't " ... communicate with a child under 14 ( at the time this offence took place the law said 14 ) that facilitat [ es ] a secondary crime ... " but " ... communicate with a child under 14 ( at the time this offence took place the law said 14 ) for the purposes of facilitating a secondary crime ... " .
Ie , the intent to facilitate a type of secondary crime mentioned is a critical part of the crime .
If the person in question was merely engaging in cybersex with no intent to commit a kind of secondary crime mentioned , then clearly any of the various interpretations of " facilitate " are irrelevant.The fact that the Canada Supreme Court should have the case retried again even though the trial court found the man not guilty based upon his lack of intent strongly implies what the Canada Supreme Court has really done is remove the need for intent .
That 's precisely the reason why there 's so much ruckus here about their reinterpretation .
After all , basically any communication with a child " facilitates " a secondary crime under their new , broad definition since virtually any communication makes an abduction easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there WAS a law and it sounds like he did break it.Uh, no.
The law isn't "... communicate with a child under 14 (at the time this offence took place the law said 14) that facilitat[es] a secondary crime ..." but "... communicate with a child under 14 (at the time this offence took place the law said 14) for the purposes of facilitating a secondary crime ...".
Ie, the intent to facilitate a type of secondary crime mentioned is a critical part of the crime.
If the person in question was merely engaging in cybersex with no intent to commit a kind of secondary crime mentioned, then clearly any of the various interpretations of "facilitate" are irrelevant.The fact that the Canada Supreme Court should have the case retried again even though the trial court found the man not guilty based upon his lack of intent strongly implies what the Canada Supreme Court has really done is remove the need for intent.
That's precisely the reason why there's so much ruckus here about their reinterpretation.
After all, basically any communication with a child "facilitates" a secondary crime under their new, broad definition since virtually any communication makes an abduction easier.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356516</id>
	<title>Adults then and now</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1260217380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When i was a child, if almost ANY adult told you to do something, you did it. If ANY adult said something to your parents, you were in deep trouble. Where i grew up, if kids were doing wrong, ANY adult would be expected to say something to them and they would generally listen. This is not the world we live in today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When i was a child , if almost ANY adult told you to do something , you did it .
If ANY adult said something to your parents , you were in deep trouble .
Where i grew up , if kids were doing wrong , ANY adult would be expected to say something to them and they would generally listen .
This is not the world we live in today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When i was a child, if almost ANY adult told you to do something, you did it.
If ANY adult said something to your parents, you were in deep trouble.
Where i grew up, if kids were doing wrong, ANY adult would be expected to say something to them and they would generally listen.
This is not the world we live in today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355800</id>
	<title>Re:Braindead justice</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1260213780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's always required to establish Mens Rea.  (You might argue that criminal negligence has no intent to cause harm, but you do have to take conspicuously negligent action.  The intent is over the actions, not the results).  The judge did not overturn the requirement that you have criminal intent.  He overturned the requirement that you actually commit the crime as the only way of demonstrating said intent.  That is, you ask a 13 year old to come over for sex, you broke the law.  The jury was instructed that until he has sex with her, he has not broken the law.  The Supreme Court threw that out and said no, the Crown only need prove that he intended to, not that he succeeded.  That is, they only need to prove intent, the actual topics of conversation don't have to be nefarious.  That is, if you hop onto a twilight board and chat up xxxBella94xxx and tell her how you like Twilight, you are fine.  Now if you track her down later and try to grab her, then you can be charged with child luring also, even though you never said anything dirty to her.  Because they still need to prove intent!  On the other hand, the other half of the ruling is that the accused needn't actually commit the crime they were intent upon for the luring charge to stick.  So if you offer a child tickets to New Moon and ask her to come over to your place to get them, you can be charged with child luring even if you don't actual grab her because the police arrest you first.  Because you had ill intent.  Or maybe not?  That's the Jury's god damn job.  The law isn't a machine where you put a person in, and it says "Guilty".  The Jury decides the intent of the person.  If you said you asked a 12 year old girl over just so you could give her some free movie tickets, and never meant to rape her, I think you'd have to be incredibly persuasive!  If, on the other hand, the only evidence against you was that you were talking to her about your favorite Twilight character, there's no way in hell I'd convict, and I'd write the Office of the Attorney General about the gross incompetence of the Crown Attorney.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always required to establish Mens Rea .
( You might argue that criminal negligence has no intent to cause harm , but you do have to take conspicuously negligent action .
The intent is over the actions , not the results ) .
The judge did not overturn the requirement that you have criminal intent .
He overturned the requirement that you actually commit the crime as the only way of demonstrating said intent .
That is , you ask a 13 year old to come over for sex , you broke the law .
The jury was instructed that until he has sex with her , he has not broken the law .
The Supreme Court threw that out and said no , the Crown only need prove that he intended to , not that he succeeded .
That is , they only need to prove intent , the actual topics of conversation do n't have to be nefarious .
That is , if you hop onto a twilight board and chat up xxxBella94xxx and tell her how you like Twilight , you are fine .
Now if you track her down later and try to grab her , then you can be charged with child luring also , even though you never said anything dirty to her .
Because they still need to prove intent !
On the other hand , the other half of the ruling is that the accused need n't actually commit the crime they were intent upon for the luring charge to stick .
So if you offer a child tickets to New Moon and ask her to come over to your place to get them , you can be charged with child luring even if you do n't actual grab her because the police arrest you first .
Because you had ill intent .
Or maybe not ?
That 's the Jury 's god damn job .
The law is n't a machine where you put a person in , and it says " Guilty " .
The Jury decides the intent of the person .
If you said you asked a 12 year old girl over just so you could give her some free movie tickets , and never meant to rape her , I think you 'd have to be incredibly persuasive !
If , on the other hand , the only evidence against you was that you were talking to her about your favorite Twilight character , there 's no way in hell I 'd convict , and I 'd write the Office of the Attorney General about the gross incompetence of the Crown Attorney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always required to establish Mens Rea.
(You might argue that criminal negligence has no intent to cause harm, but you do have to take conspicuously negligent action.
The intent is over the actions, not the results).
The judge did not overturn the requirement that you have criminal intent.
He overturned the requirement that you actually commit the crime as the only way of demonstrating said intent.
That is, you ask a 13 year old to come over for sex, you broke the law.
The jury was instructed that until he has sex with her, he has not broken the law.
The Supreme Court threw that out and said no, the Crown only need prove that he intended to, not that he succeeded.
That is, they only need to prove intent, the actual topics of conversation don't have to be nefarious.
That is, if you hop onto a twilight board and chat up xxxBella94xxx and tell her how you like Twilight, you are fine.
Now if you track her down later and try to grab her, then you can be charged with child luring also, even though you never said anything dirty to her.
Because they still need to prove intent!
On the other hand, the other half of the ruling is that the accused needn't actually commit the crime they were intent upon for the luring charge to stick.
So if you offer a child tickets to New Moon and ask her to come over to your place to get them, you can be charged with child luring even if you don't actual grab her because the police arrest you first.
Because you had ill intent.
Or maybe not?
That's the Jury's god damn job.
The law isn't a machine where you put a person in, and it says "Guilty".
The Jury decides the intent of the person.
If you said you asked a 12 year old girl over just so you could give her some free movie tickets, and never meant to rape her, I think you'd have to be incredibly persuasive!
If, on the other hand, the only evidence against you was that you were talking to her about your favorite Twilight character, there's no way in hell I'd convict, and I'd write the Office of the Attorney General about the gross incompetence of the Crown Attorney.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359064</id>
	<title>"Think of the children"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260187740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Think of the children" belongs in the past. We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds.</p><p>No, there's nothing wrong with thinking of the children if you are actually *thinking*.  I have an 11 year old daughter, and I most certainly want her to have access to an internet (and real world) with freedom of expression, respect for privacy, and all the other values I care about.  My worry isn't so much about online predators (although care is certainly needed) as about nutcases who want to push totalitarian laws onto the rest of us.</p><p>I think anyone who truly thinks about the interests of our kids will fight hard to keep these "child protection" laws off the books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Think of the children " belongs in the past .
We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds.No , there 's nothing wrong with thinking of the children if you are actually * thinking * .
I have an 11 year old daughter , and I most certainly want her to have access to an internet ( and real world ) with freedom of expression , respect for privacy , and all the other values I care about .
My worry is n't so much about online predators ( although care is certainly needed ) as about nutcases who want to push totalitarian laws onto the rest of us.I think anyone who truly thinks about the interests of our kids will fight hard to keep these " child protection " laws off the books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Think of the children" belongs in the past.
We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds.No, there's nothing wrong with thinking of the children if you are actually *thinking*.
I have an 11 year old daughter, and I most certainly want her to have access to an internet (and real world) with freedom of expression, respect for privacy, and all the other values I care about.
My worry isn't so much about online predators (although care is certainly needed) as about nutcases who want to push totalitarian laws onto the rest of us.I think anyone who truly thinks about the interests of our kids will fight hard to keep these "child protection" laws off the books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352494</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1260198960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, arn't you so high and mighty to be above childish insults.</p><p>Suck my balls TimHun... oh hold on a second, someone is knocking at my door...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , ar n't you so high and mighty to be above childish insults.Suck my balls TimHun... oh hold on a second , someone is knocking at my door.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, arn't you so high and mighty to be above childish insults.Suck my balls TimHun... oh hold on a second, someone is knocking at my door...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358520</id>
	<title>mod parent up!</title>
	<author>Maow</author>
	<datestamp>1260184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>500+ comments and this was the first one dealing with the facts in the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>500 + comments and this was the first one dealing with the facts in the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>500+ comments and this was the first one dealing with the facts in the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352050</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was about to post something similar about World of Warcraft.  Recently we had to boot a player from our guild.  He was 10.  His age didn't bother us so much because he wasn't in vent so he was missing most of the adult conversations.  What makes me wonder is there are several people online that I think act just like that 10 year old....it makes me wonder how old they are.

On the other side of the fence, maybe the online services should be held a bit more accountable for not giving the tools to parents.  I really hate the fact that to make wow playable for my kids, I have to jump through hoops turning off things like party chat and all the trade channels just to make safer for a little kid.  I don't see what is so hard for Blizzard to have parental controls to limit conversations.  I really don't want some random stranger to be talking to my 9 year old.  Even if I am there to stop it, I really don't want to explain all the insane things jerks say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to post something similar about World of Warcraft .
Recently we had to boot a player from our guild .
He was 10 .
His age did n't bother us so much because he was n't in vent so he was missing most of the adult conversations .
What makes me wonder is there are several people online that I think act just like that 10 year old....it makes me wonder how old they are .
On the other side of the fence , maybe the online services should be held a bit more accountable for not giving the tools to parents .
I really hate the fact that to make wow playable for my kids , I have to jump through hoops turning off things like party chat and all the trade channels just to make safer for a little kid .
I do n't see what is so hard for Blizzard to have parental controls to limit conversations .
I really do n't want some random stranger to be talking to my 9 year old .
Even if I am there to stop it , I really do n't want to explain all the insane things jerks say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was about to post something similar about World of Warcraft.
Recently we had to boot a player from our guild.
He was 10.
His age didn't bother us so much because he wasn't in vent so he was missing most of the adult conversations.
What makes me wonder is there are several people online that I think act just like that 10 year old....it makes me wonder how old they are.
On the other side of the fence, maybe the online services should be held a bit more accountable for not giving the tools to parents.
I really hate the fact that to make wow playable for my kids, I have to jump through hoops turning off things like party chat and all the trade channels just to make safer for a little kid.
I don't see what is so hard for Blizzard to have parental controls to limit conversations.
I really don't want some random stranger to be talking to my 9 year old.
Even if I am there to stop it, I really don't want to explain all the insane things jerks say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353190</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260202440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WTF Canadians?  I thought you people were nice and sensible!?</p></div><p>Sorry but lately english Canada is getting as retarded as USA under Bush....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF Canadians ?
I thought you people were nice and sensible !
? Sorry but lately english Canada is getting as retarded as USA under Bush... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF Canadians?
I thought you people were nice and sensible!
?Sorry but lately english Canada is getting as retarded as USA under Bush....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352060</id>
	<title>So I guess double jeopardy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260197100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Is okay in Canada?  They can acquit you then just decide "eh, that's not what we wanted. Let's have another trial"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Is okay in Canada ?
They can acquit you then just decide " eh , that 's not what we wanted .
Let 's have another trial " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Is okay in Canada?
They can acquit you then just decide "eh, that's not what we wanted.
Let's have another trial"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352358</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1260198420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reasonable thinking should be rewarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reasonable thinking should be rewarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reasonable thinking should be rewarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352822</id>
	<title>The tabloids</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1260200520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Interestingly, the hysteria is driven by tabloid newspapers who, on other pages, will be moaning about the "Nanny State</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

That's the way they work. The entire mainstream media operates on this model. Some just do it with more class than others, such as bigger publications manufacturing controversies about things like the "digital divide" or "gender wage gaps" based on faulty assumptions like not adjusting for the career choices of men and women.
<br> <br>
The public needs to realize that the "free press" is not the "mainstream media," but the freedom of ordinary people to print their speech. In the U.S., the first amendment was never intended to protect journalists as a profession, but to broadly protect the common man's access and property rights in means to publish protected speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , the hysteria is driven by tabloid newspapers who , on other pages , will be moaning about the " Nanny State That 's the way they work .
The entire mainstream media operates on this model .
Some just do it with more class than others , such as bigger publications manufacturing controversies about things like the " digital divide " or " gender wage gaps " based on faulty assumptions like not adjusting for the career choices of men and women .
The public needs to realize that the " free press " is not the " mainstream media , " but the freedom of ordinary people to print their speech .
In the U.S. , the first amendment was never intended to protect journalists as a profession , but to broadly protect the common man 's access and property rights in means to publish protected speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, the hysteria is driven by tabloid newspapers who, on other pages, will be moaning about the "Nanny State


That's the way they work.
The entire mainstream media operates on this model.
Some just do it with more class than others, such as bigger publications manufacturing controversies about things like the "digital divide" or "gender wage gaps" based on faulty assumptions like not adjusting for the career choices of men and women.
The public needs to realize that the "free press" is not the "mainstream media," but the freedom of ordinary people to print their speech.
In the U.S., the first amendment was never intended to protect journalists as a profession, but to broadly protect the common man's access and property rights in means to publish protected speech.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353674</id>
	<title>Re:Take the full step</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1260204600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we have enough kids, already.  right?</p><p>ban kids.  outright.</p><p>airplanes, restaurants and movie theatres will finally be quiet places, again.</p><p>not everyone WANTS to hear about kids, be around kids, have kids dominate every aspect of their lives.  some people see MORE than just procreation as a reason to Be Here(tm).</p><p>stop defining humanity in how it 'watches out' for the little ones around us.</p><p>as mark twain once said, "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it"</p><p>PLEASE stop defining our society in terms of 'is X good for the children?'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we have enough kids , already .
right ? ban kids .
outright.airplanes , restaurants and movie theatres will finally be quiet places , again.not everyone WANTS to hear about kids , be around kids , have kids dominate every aspect of their lives .
some people see MORE than just procreation as a reason to Be Here ( tm ) .stop defining humanity in how it 'watches out ' for the little ones around us.as mark twain once said , " Censorship is telling a man he ca n't have a steak just because a baby ca n't chew it " PLEASE stop defining our society in terms of 'is X good for the children ?
' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we have enough kids, already.
right?ban kids.
outright.airplanes, restaurants and movie theatres will finally be quiet places, again.not everyone WANTS to hear about kids, be around kids, have kids dominate every aspect of their lives.
some people see MORE than just procreation as a reason to Be Here(tm).stop defining humanity in how it 'watches out' for the little ones around us.as mark twain once said, "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it"PLEASE stop defining our society in terms of 'is X good for the children?
'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359520</id>
	<title>Re:go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260190080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nahh, I find very little sociological evidence of the DEGREE of paranoia that exists today.  The concept of "stranger danger" was INVENTED about 30 years ago.  The concept of "child pornography" wasn't formally defined until about 30 years ago.  The concept of sacrificing an adult's rights for the sake of a child is a pretty much 20th century and later concept.</p><p>From YOUR personal frame of reference, it might seem like an impossible biological imperative. But I vehemently dispute that and cite an awful lot of history as evidence.</p><p>I think where we differ is this concept.   Everyone protects their offspring, but it's only in the last 30 years that people have come to obsess over, not the direct protection of their offspring, but the appearance of safety.</p><p>The fact that more than 70\% of "children" were working full time by the age of 10 in quite a majority of past cultures, despite it probably being fairly obvious that those jobs may be dangerous, seems to lean that way.</p><p>Go watch "leave it to beaver" and count out loud the number of behaviors exhibited in that show that would be regarded as pathologically dangerous by the hysterical parents today.   Hopping on the back of the milkman's truck by yourself at the age of 9 to go downtown?   Stopping to help a man you've only met twice paint his house?  Riding your bike home and stopping by the grocery store to pick up the groceries that mom asked for and getting home shortly before dark....  when nobody was supervising you at all?</p><p>Phew.</p><p>The thing is that people realized abductions and kidnappings and things were extraordinarily rare.   Actually, on a per-capita basis, they're EVEN MORE RARE now than they were in the 1950s.  Bet you didn't know that?!</p><p>But parents watch Nancy Grace on TV and wring their hands when people say things like "what has the world come to?" when in reality, violent crime today is at it's lowest per-capita level since the American Revolution.</p><p>I'm not about to SIT DOWN and let that fear overrun everything we fight for.  I want to stand up and make it compulsory education in schools (just like "stranger danger" is today) that our society is safer than it ever has been and a sense of mutual trust will only help grow that safety and strength.</p><p>Then, a generation of kids will grow up, not fearing their neighbor, but helping him.</p><p>Wouldn't that be nice?</p><p>It would have a nice side effect of chilling this disgusting trend of the last 30 years toward absurd "Think of the children" attitudes.</p><p>You know that a survey of americans, when asked what they believed the primary motivation for someone visting either Thailand or the Philippines is, that almost 40\% responded that they believed the "primary" motivation for such a visit would most likely be sex-tourism?</p><p>Do you find that a NATURAL reaction?   I notice you're working on a Filipino movie, which is why I ask.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nahh , I find very little sociological evidence of the DEGREE of paranoia that exists today .
The concept of " stranger danger " was INVENTED about 30 years ago .
The concept of " child pornography " was n't formally defined until about 30 years ago .
The concept of sacrificing an adult 's rights for the sake of a child is a pretty much 20th century and later concept.From YOUR personal frame of reference , it might seem like an impossible biological imperative .
But I vehemently dispute that and cite an awful lot of history as evidence.I think where we differ is this concept .
Everyone protects their offspring , but it 's only in the last 30 years that people have come to obsess over , not the direct protection of their offspring , but the appearance of safety.The fact that more than 70 \ % of " children " were working full time by the age of 10 in quite a majority of past cultures , despite it probably being fairly obvious that those jobs may be dangerous , seems to lean that way.Go watch " leave it to beaver " and count out loud the number of behaviors exhibited in that show that would be regarded as pathologically dangerous by the hysterical parents today .
Hopping on the back of the milkman 's truck by yourself at the age of 9 to go downtown ?
Stopping to help a man you 've only met twice paint his house ?
Riding your bike home and stopping by the grocery store to pick up the groceries that mom asked for and getting home shortly before dark.... when nobody was supervising you at all ? Phew.The thing is that people realized abductions and kidnappings and things were extraordinarily rare .
Actually , on a per-capita basis , they 're EVEN MORE RARE now than they were in the 1950s .
Bet you did n't know that ?
! But parents watch Nancy Grace on TV and wring their hands when people say things like " what has the world come to ?
" when in reality , violent crime today is at it 's lowest per-capita level since the American Revolution.I 'm not about to SIT DOWN and let that fear overrun everything we fight for .
I want to stand up and make it compulsory education in schools ( just like " stranger danger " is today ) that our society is safer than it ever has been and a sense of mutual trust will only help grow that safety and strength.Then , a generation of kids will grow up , not fearing their neighbor , but helping him.Would n't that be nice ? It would have a nice side effect of chilling this disgusting trend of the last 30 years toward absurd " Think of the children " attitudes.You know that a survey of americans , when asked what they believed the primary motivation for someone visting either Thailand or the Philippines is , that almost 40 \ % responded that they believed the " primary " motivation for such a visit would most likely be sex-tourism ? Do you find that a NATURAL reaction ?
I notice you 're working on a Filipino movie , which is why I ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nahh, I find very little sociological evidence of the DEGREE of paranoia that exists today.
The concept of "stranger danger" was INVENTED about 30 years ago.
The concept of "child pornography" wasn't formally defined until about 30 years ago.
The concept of sacrificing an adult's rights for the sake of a child is a pretty much 20th century and later concept.From YOUR personal frame of reference, it might seem like an impossible biological imperative.
But I vehemently dispute that and cite an awful lot of history as evidence.I think where we differ is this concept.
Everyone protects their offspring, but it's only in the last 30 years that people have come to obsess over, not the direct protection of their offspring, but the appearance of safety.The fact that more than 70\% of "children" were working full time by the age of 10 in quite a majority of past cultures, despite it probably being fairly obvious that those jobs may be dangerous, seems to lean that way.Go watch "leave it to beaver" and count out loud the number of behaviors exhibited in that show that would be regarded as pathologically dangerous by the hysterical parents today.
Hopping on the back of the milkman's truck by yourself at the age of 9 to go downtown?
Stopping to help a man you've only met twice paint his house?
Riding your bike home and stopping by the grocery store to pick up the groceries that mom asked for and getting home shortly before dark....  when nobody was supervising you at all?Phew.The thing is that people realized abductions and kidnappings and things were extraordinarily rare.
Actually, on a per-capita basis, they're EVEN MORE RARE now than they were in the 1950s.
Bet you didn't know that?
!But parents watch Nancy Grace on TV and wring their hands when people say things like "what has the world come to?
" when in reality, violent crime today is at it's lowest per-capita level since the American Revolution.I'm not about to SIT DOWN and let that fear overrun everything we fight for.
I want to stand up and make it compulsory education in schools (just like "stranger danger" is today) that our society is safer than it ever has been and a sense of mutual trust will only help grow that safety and strength.Then, a generation of kids will grow up, not fearing their neighbor, but helping him.Wouldn't that be nice?It would have a nice side effect of chilling this disgusting trend of the last 30 years toward absurd "Think of the children" attitudes.You know that a survey of americans, when asked what they believed the primary motivation for someone visting either Thailand or the Philippines is, that almost 40\% responded that they believed the "primary" motivation for such a visit would most likely be sex-tourism?Do you find that a NATURAL reaction?
I notice you're working on a Filipino movie, which is why I ask.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354638</id>
	<title>Re:Take the full step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously...this is the only solution. I really liked it better when most of the world thought the "internet" was contained on those cd's that said "AOL"....oh wait,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously...this is the only solution .
I really liked it better when most of the world thought the " internet " was contained on those cd 's that said " AOL " ....oh wait,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously...this is the only solution.
I really liked it better when most of the world thought the "internet" was contained on those cd's that said "AOL"....oh wait,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352938</id>
	<title>Re:More at 11.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260201180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada, home of the free speech tribunals? Which can unilaterally ban products if they are deemed "insensitive" with absolutely no oversight or public vote?</p><p>They're going way off the deep-end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada , home of the free speech tribunals ?
Which can unilaterally ban products if they are deemed " insensitive " with absolutely no oversight or public vote ? They 're going way off the deep-end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada, home of the free speech tribunals?
Which can unilaterally ban products if they are deemed "insensitive" with absolutely no oversight or public vote?They're going way off the deep-end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848</id>
	<title>probably no need to worry</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1260196020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love inflammatory comments as much as the next<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er, but I can't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody. Most likely it'll be used as part of child exploitation cases just to pile on the charges or find something to pin on the defendant. So probably not a big deal...<br> <br>...unless the local DA (or Canada's equivalent) has a bone to pick with you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love inflammatory comments as much as the next /.er , but I ca n't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody .
Most likely it 'll be used as part of child exploitation cases just to pile on the charges or find something to pin on the defendant .
So probably not a big deal... ...unless the local DA ( or Canada 's equivalent ) has a bone to pick with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love inflammatory comments as much as the next /.er, but I can't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody.
Most likely it'll be used as part of child exploitation cases just to pile on the charges or find something to pin on the defendant.
So probably not a big deal... ...unless the local DA (or Canada's equivalent) has a bone to pick with you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352128</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260197460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I can see it now, people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like "suck my balls"</p></div></blockquote><p>

Is that something you're likely to say?</p></div><p>
IMO "suck my balls" sounds like something a child would say from the saftey of their basement. My children are 28 and 23, they seem to have grown out of the childish insult phase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see it now , people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like " suck my balls " Is that something you 're likely to say ?
IMO " suck my balls " sounds like something a child would say from the saftey of their basement .
My children are 28 and 23 , they seem to have grown out of the childish insult phase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see it now, people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like "suck my balls"

Is that something you're likely to say?
IMO "suck my balls" sounds like something a child would say from the saftey of their basement.
My children are 28 and 23, they seem to have grown out of the childish insult phase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354886</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260209340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have  no right to share interests and talk with someone else's children.  If you do mix in social situations, it is with the children under supervision of a adult.</p><p>If you like to talk to children online - do you hang out at elementary schools to talk to the children on the playground at recess?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no right to share interests and talk with someone else 's children .
If you do mix in social situations , it is with the children under supervision of a adult.If you like to talk to children online - do you hang out at elementary schools to talk to the children on the playground at recess ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have  no right to share interests and talk with someone else's children.
If you do mix in social situations, it is with the children under supervision of a adult.If you like to talk to children online - do you hang out at elementary schools to talk to the children on the playground at recess?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356928</id>
	<title>Re:So Wait...</title>
	<author>JobyKSU</author>
	<datestamp>1260219240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From one of the video links in TFA: <br>

It doesn't matter what age the child actually is, but instead on what age is claimed. This was a direct request from the police - it ensures the continued ability to run sting operations.

<br>So, no - you can't get hauled in for not knowing, unless you are trolling the age specific (ie. 10-13) chat rooms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From one of the video links in TFA : It does n't matter what age the child actually is , but instead on what age is claimed .
This was a direct request from the police - it ensures the continued ability to run sting operations .
So , no - you ca n't get hauled in for not knowing , unless you are trolling the age specific ( ie .
10-13 ) chat rooms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From one of the video links in TFA: 

It doesn't matter what age the child actually is, but instead on what age is claimed.
This was a direct request from the police - it ensures the continued ability to run sting operations.
So, no - you can't get hauled in for not knowing, unless you are trolling the age specific (ie.
10-13) chat rooms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357320</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260178080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I look forward to sicking store security on little old ladies who get in baby's faces with their nasty perfume and yellow nails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I look forward to sicking store security on little old ladies who get in baby 's faces with their nasty perfume and yellow nails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look forward to sicking store security on little old ladies who get in baby's faces with their nasty perfume and yellow nails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352454</id>
	<title>Re:Double jeopardy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260198780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the Charter of Rights (and Wikipedia!) we have the right not to be tried again in Canada.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_Eleven\_of\_the\_Canadian\_Charter\_of\_Rights\_and\_Freedoms#Right\_not\_to\_be\_tried\_again</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Charter of Rights ( and Wikipedia !
) we have the right not to be tried again in Canada.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section \ _Eleven \ _of \ _the \ _Canadian \ _Charter \ _of \ _Rights \ _and \ _Freedoms # Right \ _not \ _to \ _be \ _tried \ _again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Charter of Rights (and Wikipedia!
) we have the right not to be tried again in Canada.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_Eleven\_of\_the\_Canadian\_Charter\_of\_Rights\_and\_Freedoms#Right\_not\_to\_be\_tried\_again</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354394</id>
	<title>Re:Back in the day</title>
	<author>Internalist</author>
	<datestamp>1260207480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There really are people out there who think that if an adult says "Hi" to a kid they don't know, said adult must be up to no good.</p></div><p>0:26<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN6XfyQsr4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN6XfyQsr4</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>(really, just an excuse to promote something I think is good)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There really are people out there who think that if an adult says " Hi " to a kid they do n't know , said adult must be up to no good.0 : 26http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = yoN6XfyQsr4 [ youtube.com ] ( really , just an excuse to promote something I think is good )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really are people out there who think that if an adult says "Hi" to a kid they don't know, said adult must be up to no good.0:26http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN6XfyQsr4 [youtube.com](really, just an excuse to promote something I think is good)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352100</id>
	<title>Re:Private net</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1260197280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely. That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.</p></div><p>Which unfortunately will be a magnet for people who do want to have inappropriate conversations with kids.</p><p>Segmentation and/or punishment will never compete with the benefits of supervision *and* education</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely .
That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.Which unfortunately will be a magnet for people who do want to have inappropriate conversations with kids.Segmentation and/or punishment will never compete with the benefits of supervision * and * education</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems more and more reasonable to give kids their own version of the internet completely.
That way we wont get crazy someone think of the children laws.Which unfortunately will be a magnet for people who do want to have inappropriate conversations with kids.Segmentation and/or punishment will never compete with the benefits of supervision *and* education
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352626</id>
	<title>News for you, childhood is already ruined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260199620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work in schools doing computer tech support. I see teachers already laboring under existing rules covering in-person behaviour; no hugs for kindergartners, no "inappropriate" conversations, etc. The message is, kids are bad news, dangerous to everyone. I'd sooner cut my own throat than try to help a lost child in a public place. Is this REALLY what we want?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in schools doing computer tech support .
I see teachers already laboring under existing rules covering in-person behaviour ; no hugs for kindergartners , no " inappropriate " conversations , etc .
The message is , kids are bad news , dangerous to everyone .
I 'd sooner cut my own throat than try to help a lost child in a public place .
Is this REALLY what we want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in schools doing computer tech support.
I see teachers already laboring under existing rules covering in-person behaviour; no hugs for kindergartners, no "inappropriate" conversations, etc.
The message is, kids are bad news, dangerous to everyone.
I'd sooner cut my own throat than try to help a lost child in a public place.
Is this REALLY what we want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357074</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Julien Brub</author>
	<datestamp>1260176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that by "include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child &mdash; even if the chats aren't sexual in nature" does not include anything that would get you arrested if it would be said in "real-life". It probably concerns death threats and the like.

You would not say "suck my balls" to an underage after beating him at chess in a coffee anyway, and I think the same should apply online.

But saying "I'm so gonna cut you in half - I know where you live" to a kid after he beats you at chess could get you arrested, and I think the same should apply online.

The question of knowing or not if one is an underage is another thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that by " include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child    even if the chats are n't sexual in nature " does not include anything that would get you arrested if it would be said in " real-life " .
It probably concerns death threats and the like .
You would not say " suck my balls " to an underage after beating him at chess in a coffee anyway , and I think the same should apply online .
But saying " I 'm so gon na cut you in half - I know where you live " to a kid after he beats you at chess could get you arrested , and I think the same should apply online .
The question of knowing or not if one is an underage is another thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that by "include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child — even if the chats aren't sexual in nature" does not include anything that would get you arrested if it would be said in "real-life".
It probably concerns death threats and the like.
You would not say "suck my balls" to an underage after beating him at chess in a coffee anyway, and I think the same should apply online.
But saying "I'm so gonna cut you in half - I know where you live" to a kid after he beats you at chess could get you arrested, and I think the same should apply online.
The question of knowing or not if one is an underage is another thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110</id>
	<title>Re:why would an adult talk to another child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260197340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>other than situations where they answer the phone and you ask to speak to their parents or they are visiting your kids. why would an adult need to communicate with someone else's child over the internet?</p></div><p>For the same reason we talk to other adults? Because we share interests?</p><p>The music I enjoy, computer games I play, sports I watch.. plenty of those have an audience that is not exclusively for adults or children. We mix at the physical concerts and stadiums, so why not in on-line discussions? I've talked to plenty of tweens and teenagers who had more intelligent things to discuss than quite a few adults. Since most laws don't distinguish between adolescents and toddlers, should those "children" be off-limits to talk to as well?</p><p>That said, I agree there's probably not much adults have in common with pre-teens nor would there often be a reason to communicate with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>other than situations where they answer the phone and you ask to speak to their parents or they are visiting your kids .
why would an adult need to communicate with someone else 's child over the internet ? For the same reason we talk to other adults ?
Because we share interests ? The music I enjoy , computer games I play , sports I watch.. plenty of those have an audience that is not exclusively for adults or children .
We mix at the physical concerts and stadiums , so why not in on-line discussions ?
I 've talked to plenty of tweens and teenagers who had more intelligent things to discuss than quite a few adults .
Since most laws do n't distinguish between adolescents and toddlers , should those " children " be off-limits to talk to as well ? That said , I agree there 's probably not much adults have in common with pre-teens nor would there often be a reason to communicate with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>other than situations where they answer the phone and you ask to speak to their parents or they are visiting your kids.
why would an adult need to communicate with someone else's child over the internet?For the same reason we talk to other adults?
Because we share interests?The music I enjoy, computer games I play, sports I watch.. plenty of those have an audience that is not exclusively for adults or children.
We mix at the physical concerts and stadiums, so why not in on-line discussions?
I've talked to plenty of tweens and teenagers who had more intelligent things to discuss than quite a few adults.
Since most laws don't distinguish between adolescents and toddlers, should those "children" be off-limits to talk to as well?That said, I agree there's probably not much adults have in common with pre-teens nor would there often be a reason to communicate with them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352694</id>
	<title>He pretended to be 17</title>
	<author>DodgeRules</author>
	<datestamp>1260199920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a lot of people are missing a very important piece of the puzzle:  The guy pretended to be 17.  I think this may be a big factor in their decision to prosecute this guy.  It wasn't just a case of an adult chatting with a child.  It was a case of a guy pretending to be a child himself and talking to another child.  Of course he couldn't pretend to be much younger than 17 as I'm sure his voice was too deep, but he could still at this point pretend to be a "big brother" to the victim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a lot of people are missing a very important piece of the puzzle : The guy pretended to be 17 .
I think this may be a big factor in their decision to prosecute this guy .
It was n't just a case of an adult chatting with a child .
It was a case of a guy pretending to be a child himself and talking to another child .
Of course he could n't pretend to be much younger than 17 as I 'm sure his voice was too deep , but he could still at this point pretend to be a " big brother " to the victim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a lot of people are missing a very important piece of the puzzle:  The guy pretended to be 17.
I think this may be a big factor in their decision to prosecute this guy.
It wasn't just a case of an adult chatting with a child.
It was a case of a guy pretending to be a child himself and talking to another child.
Of course he couldn't pretend to be much younger than 17 as I'm sure his voice was too deep, but he could still at this point pretend to be a "big brother" to the victim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353532</id>
	<title>Unintended consequences</title>
	<author>NiceGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1260203940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I'm a fan of a singer that also has many younger fans (teens) and talk to them fairly often on the official forum and on Twitter...this makes me a evil pedophile?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I 'm a fan of a singer that also has many younger fans ( teens ) and talk to them fairly often on the official forum and on Twitter...this makes me a evil pedophile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I'm a fan of a singer that also has many younger fans (teens) and talk to them fairly often on the official forum and on Twitter...this makes me a evil pedophile?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355422</id>
	<title>Re:Take the full step</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1260211920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Underage minors can't legally drink alcohol where I am, but that doesn't give you a defense to statutory rape just because she was drinking a beer when you seduced her.  Banning children from the internet would, if anything, just make it more common for people to get prosecuted for talking to them, since the law would act to reinforce the assumption that whoever you are talking to online is an adult.
<br> <br>
The right group to ban from the internet is apparently Canadians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Underage minors ca n't legally drink alcohol where I am , but that does n't give you a defense to statutory rape just because she was drinking a beer when you seduced her .
Banning children from the internet would , if anything , just make it more common for people to get prosecuted for talking to them , since the law would act to reinforce the assumption that whoever you are talking to online is an adult .
The right group to ban from the internet is apparently Canadians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Underage minors can't legally drink alcohol where I am, but that doesn't give you a defense to statutory rape just because she was drinking a beer when you seduced her.
Banning children from the internet would, if anything, just make it more common for people to get prosecuted for talking to them, since the law would act to reinforce the assumption that whoever you are talking to online is an adult.
The right group to ban from the internet is apparently Canadians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354040</id>
	<title>Re:probably no need to worry</title>
	<author>computational super</author>
	<datestamp>1260206040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I can't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody.</i>
<p>Nobody imagined that teenage girls would be prosecuted for sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends (except for us "inflammatory alarmists" who told you this would happen ten years ago when the law started going overboard).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody .
Nobody imagined that teenage girls would be prosecuted for sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends ( except for us " inflammatory alarmists " who told you this would happen ten years ago when the law started going overboard ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody.
Nobody imagined that teenage girls would be prosecuted for sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends (except for us "inflammatory alarmists" who told you this would happen ten years ago when the law started going overboard).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354164</id>
	<title>You think that's bad, try tr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260206580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are even some situations in the US in which you can be subject to the equivalent of double or even triple jeopardy.  Eg. if you are in the military, then after you get acquitted by a state court, the military can try and convict you.  If you somehow get acquitted of the state crime, you can always be tried and convicted of an equivalent (but different) federal crime - that's how some civil rights atrocities were handled.  I've heard that the worst thing you can do is:  murder a postal worker, while a member of the armed forces, on tribal Indian land.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are even some situations in the US in which you can be subject to the equivalent of double or even triple jeopardy .
Eg. if you are in the military , then after you get acquitted by a state court , the military can try and convict you .
If you somehow get acquitted of the state crime , you can always be tried and convicted of an equivalent ( but different ) federal crime - that 's how some civil rights atrocities were handled .
I 've heard that the worst thing you can do is : murder a postal worker , while a member of the armed forces , on tribal Indian land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are even some situations in the US in which you can be subject to the equivalent of double or even triple jeopardy.
Eg. if you are in the military, then after you get acquitted by a state court, the military can try and convict you.
If you somehow get acquitted of the state crime, you can always be tried and convicted of an equivalent (but different) federal crime - that's how some civil rights atrocities were handled.
I've heard that the worst thing you can do is:  murder a postal worker, while a member of the armed forces, on tribal Indian land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359402</id>
	<title>On another instinct</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1260189300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>no matter how overzealous that protective instinct is, it will persist due to the laws of evolution, and you need to make peace with it and accept it: its never going away</p></div><p>Humans also have an instinct to socialize.  The internet is one medium for this kind of communication.  I don't think you can ever make this other instinct go away either, and I think there should be room for both.</p><p>A law that means you can be busted for talking normally about normal stuff (by a fairly reasonable definition of "normal", not including sex) with children whose age you can't verify is in my opinion a <b>bad thing</b>.  Would you like to go to jail for saying "DIAF" on the tubes?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no matter how overzealous that protective instinct is , it will persist due to the laws of evolution , and you need to make peace with it and accept it : its never going awayHumans also have an instinct to socialize .
The internet is one medium for this kind of communication .
I do n't think you can ever make this other instinct go away either , and I think there should be room for both.A law that means you can be busted for talking normally about normal stuff ( by a fairly reasonable definition of " normal " , not including sex ) with children whose age you ca n't verify is in my opinion a bad thing .
Would you like to go to jail for saying " DIAF " on the tubes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no matter how overzealous that protective instinct is, it will persist due to the laws of evolution, and you need to make peace with it and accept it: its never going awayHumans also have an instinct to socialize.
The internet is one medium for this kind of communication.
I don't think you can ever make this other instinct go away either, and I think there should be room for both.A law that means you can be busted for talking normally about normal stuff (by a fairly reasonable definition of "normal", not including sex) with children whose age you can't verify is in my opinion a bad thing.
Would you like to go to jail for saying "DIAF" on the tubes?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352282</id>
	<title>Re:Heh</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1260198120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seeing as I was chuckling to myself the other night that some guy on XBox live gave out his home address so that the guy who kicked his ass could come round and fight him in real life because the guy who got beaten, could, I quote "fucking destroy your ass in real life you little bitch" I thought the "suck my balls" quote was actually quite tame<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Really, people who take games seriously enough to get so worked up provide great comedy, and yes it's quite frequent that you would hear such things, but certainly the sex offenders register isn't the place for them as much as that might add to the comedy value of the circus that is online gaming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as I was chuckling to myself the other night that some guy on XBox live gave out his home address so that the guy who kicked his ass could come round and fight him in real life because the guy who got beaten , could , I quote " fucking destroy your ass in real life you little bitch " I thought the " suck my balls " quote was actually quite tame ; ) Really , people who take games seriously enough to get so worked up provide great comedy , and yes it 's quite frequent that you would hear such things , but certainly the sex offenders register is n't the place for them as much as that might add to the comedy value of the circus that is online gaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as I was chuckling to myself the other night that some guy on XBox live gave out his home address so that the guy who kicked his ass could come round and fight him in real life because the guy who got beaten, could, I quote "fucking destroy your ass in real life you little bitch" I thought the "suck my balls" quote was actually quite tame ;)Really, people who take games seriously enough to get so worked up provide great comedy, and yes it's quite frequent that you would hear such things, but certainly the sex offenders register isn't the place for them as much as that might add to the comedy value of the circus that is online gaming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355714</id>
	<title>Internet Child Detector Anyone?</title>
	<author>houbou</author>
	<datestamp>1260213480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does one truly know if they are chatting with a child without video? Psychic Internet Line? I'm all for child protection and I'm again pedophiles.  But assuming one can truly be 100\% of the context of a conversation between child and adult, how do we adults teach the kids out there anything, if we can't communicate with them?<br> <br>

I think Canada needs to rethink this strategy.  First, there should be a way to establishing credibility in the identity of a person going online.  It may be time for governments of countries like Canada, the US, etc... to get on board with a "internet based age verification system" which all web based social networks must use in order to access their servers.  The porn sites have it easy, have a credit card, then you're of age.  Maybe ISP could be resellers for these "age verification" where if you don't own a credit card, but are being billed by your ISP, then you must be of age, and they can sell you this card..</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does one truly know if they are chatting with a child without video ?
Psychic Internet Line ?
I 'm all for child protection and I 'm again pedophiles .
But assuming one can truly be 100 \ % of the context of a conversation between child and adult , how do we adults teach the kids out there anything , if we ca n't communicate with them ?
I think Canada needs to rethink this strategy .
First , there should be a way to establishing credibility in the identity of a person going online .
It may be time for governments of countries like Canada , the US , etc... to get on board with a " internet based age verification system " which all web based social networks must use in order to access their servers .
The porn sites have it easy , have a credit card , then you 're of age .
Maybe ISP could be resellers for these " age verification " where if you do n't own a credit card , but are being billed by your ISP , then you must be of age , and they can sell you this card. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does one truly know if they are chatting with a child without video?
Psychic Internet Line?
I'm all for child protection and I'm again pedophiles.
But assuming one can truly be 100\% of the context of a conversation between child and adult, how do we adults teach the kids out there anything, if we can't communicate with them?
I think Canada needs to rethink this strategy.
First, there should be a way to establishing credibility in the identity of a person going online.
It may be time for governments of countries like Canada, the US, etc... to get on board with a "internet based age verification system" which all web based social networks must use in order to access their servers.
The porn sites have it easy, have a credit card, then you're of age.
Maybe ISP could be resellers for these "age verification" where if you don't own a credit card, but are being billed by your ISP, then you must be of age, and they can sell you this card..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354744</id>
	<title>Re:go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1260208800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tend to disagree.  I think this is more of a recent cultural shift.  You're right that protecting children is a fundamental human instinct, but we have, in the past, been far more trusting of strangers than we are today.  My girlfriends' mom was terrified of the prospect of her being kidnapped as a child, largely because of horror stories to that effect that were prevalent on the news.  Such an event, however, is statistically very improbable.  And she was far less concerned about her daughter being injured in a car accident, which is fairly likely.  My mom, on the other hand, who was raised with a larger extended family and in a more open sort of community was relatively unconcerned with me speaking to adults.  Our concern for our children is commonly misplaced, and it isn't our instincts that are to blame.  Among other things, it's news media that distorts the danger by overreporting these sorts of crimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to disagree .
I think this is more of a recent cultural shift .
You 're right that protecting children is a fundamental human instinct , but we have , in the past , been far more trusting of strangers than we are today .
My girlfriends ' mom was terrified of the prospect of her being kidnapped as a child , largely because of horror stories to that effect that were prevalent on the news .
Such an event , however , is statistically very improbable .
And she was far less concerned about her daughter being injured in a car accident , which is fairly likely .
My mom , on the other hand , who was raised with a larger extended family and in a more open sort of community was relatively unconcerned with me speaking to adults .
Our concern for our children is commonly misplaced , and it is n't our instincts that are to blame .
Among other things , it 's news media that distorts the danger by overreporting these sorts of crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to disagree.
I think this is more of a recent cultural shift.
You're right that protecting children is a fundamental human instinct, but we have, in the past, been far more trusting of strangers than we are today.
My girlfriends' mom was terrified of the prospect of her being kidnapped as a child, largely because of horror stories to that effect that were prevalent on the news.
Such an event, however, is statistically very improbable.
And she was far less concerned about her daughter being injured in a car accident, which is fairly likely.
My mom, on the other hand, who was raised with a larger extended family and in a more open sort of community was relatively unconcerned with me speaking to adults.
Our concern for our children is commonly misplaced, and it isn't our instincts that are to blame.
Among other things, it's news media that distorts the danger by overreporting these sorts of crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356012</id>
	<title>XBOX Live</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1260214860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"inappropriate conversation with a child"</p><p>LOL - Now that's funny.</p><p>Anyone that has ever been on XBOX Live knows that A) it is full of kids, and B) there is not such thing an an appropriate conversion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" inappropriate conversation with a child " LOL - Now that 's funny.Anyone that has ever been on XBOX Live knows that A ) it is full of kids , and B ) there is not such thing an an appropriate conversion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"inappropriate conversation with a child"LOL - Now that's funny.Anyone that has ever been on XBOX Live knows that A) it is full of kids, and B) there is not such thing an an appropriate conversion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351872</id>
	<title>Lets get this over with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we get this over with and just lock up all adult males? Obviously, we are all sexual predator pedophiles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we get this over with and just lock up all adult males ?
Obviously , we are all sexual predator pedophiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we get this over with and just lock up all adult males?
Obviously, we are all sexual predator pedophiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352156</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260197640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is now. Welcome to the new world order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is now .
Welcome to the new world order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is now.
Welcome to the new world order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352566</id>
	<title>Re:More at 11.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260199320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seen? SEEN? Are suggesting that children should be SEEN? As in, people might LOOK AT THEM?!!? YOU WANT TO LOOK AT CHILDREN???</p><p>UUURRGRGGGHHH!!! PEDO! PEDO! We gots us a pedo in the internets!!!! Break out the pitchforks boys...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seen ?
SEEN ? Are suggesting that children should be SEEN ?
As in , people might LOOK AT THEM ? ! ! ?
YOU WANT TO LOOK AT CHILDREN ? ? ? UUURRGRGGGHHH ! ! !
PEDO ! PEDO !
We gots us a pedo in the internets ! ! ! !
Break out the pitchforks boys.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seen?
SEEN? Are suggesting that children should be SEEN?
As in, people might LOOK AT THEM?!!?
YOU WANT TO LOOK AT CHILDREN???UUURRGRGGGHHH!!!
PEDO! PEDO!
We gots us a pedo in the internets!!!!
Break out the pitchforks boys...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426</id>
	<title>go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1260198660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>try to reason with the six foot scaly mother that shows up to defend those eggs. you have just as much chance of defeating the "think of the children!" irrational impulse of homo sapiens. because as members of the ancient order of crocodilians has discovered, like many mammalians, is that if you invest in only a few offspring (as opposed to the fish and amphibian strategy of "fire and forget" 10,000 eggs), then it is a survival advantage to be overprotective of your children</p><p>the irrational desire to protect children from the various dangerous scenarios of adult IS an irrational desire. much like the irrational desire to feed. or the irrational desire to fornicate</p><p>in other words: not so rational from a point of view of principles and concepts, but very rational from the point of view of the preservation of and continuation of life: take care of your children</p><p>biological imperatives trump all high minded concepts. principles and concepts work only when they aren't interfering with biological imperatives. as an example: every right, freedom, and sense of decency you hold dear and valuable in your mind is just one food riot away from being completely violated without any recourse to justice</p><p>no police, court system, or government body can remain coherent when those police, judges, and government bureaucrats are busier trying to procure some food</p><p>so pay attention to biological imperatives, they matter a hell of a whole lot. ignore them at the peril of losing all progress we've ever made in human society</p><p>one of which being: "think of the children!" there is a very real biological rational reason to protect your offspring from the real world until they are able enough physically and mentally to protect themselves. evolution favors the survival rate of organisms that actively protect their offspring, where that set of offspring is small, such as us humans. so "think of the children!" is an overbearing, overwhelming, messy, intrusive impulse that cannot be reasoned with. and yet it makes 100\% sense biologically</p><p>all i'm saying is that "think of the children!" might be the butt of every slashdot joke, but it is also an irrational "hysteria" that you need to make peace with and accept, because it is simply never, ever going away. because it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, but from a completely different point of view, a point of view that trumps all other points of view: the biological imperatives</p><p>look at it this way: without children, all the arguments you could ever have about rights and freedoms won't matter one bit if there's no one here to inherit the society and the government you tried to improve. the health and well being of the generation that comes after you is all you leave in this world, on an individual and a societal level. so it really is of the highest importance that you do your best to protect children until they can fend for themselves</p><p>this simple, brutal logic defeats and overrules all other arguments you can possibly make on the matter</p><p>"think of the children" reigns supreme. it is your job to simply accept this biological imperative, as messy and intrusive as it is, as messy and intrusive as the need to visit the bathroom, the desire to fornicate, and the need to shove sustenance into your mouth: creatures that have few offspring and act protective of their children have an evolutionary advantage over those that don't</p><p>no matter how overzealous that protective instinct is, it will persist due to the laws of evolution, and you need to make peace with it and accept it: its never going away</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>try to reason with the six foot scaly mother that shows up to defend those eggs .
you have just as much chance of defeating the " think of the children !
" irrational impulse of homo sapiens .
because as members of the ancient order of crocodilians has discovered , like many mammalians , is that if you invest in only a few offspring ( as opposed to the fish and amphibian strategy of " fire and forget " 10,000 eggs ) , then it is a survival advantage to be overprotective of your childrenthe irrational desire to protect children from the various dangerous scenarios of adult IS an irrational desire .
much like the irrational desire to feed .
or the irrational desire to fornicatein other words : not so rational from a point of view of principles and concepts , but very rational from the point of view of the preservation of and continuation of life : take care of your childrenbiological imperatives trump all high minded concepts .
principles and concepts work only when they are n't interfering with biological imperatives .
as an example : every right , freedom , and sense of decency you hold dear and valuable in your mind is just one food riot away from being completely violated without any recourse to justiceno police , court system , or government body can remain coherent when those police , judges , and government bureaucrats are busier trying to procure some foodso pay attention to biological imperatives , they matter a hell of a whole lot .
ignore them at the peril of losing all progress we 've ever made in human societyone of which being : " think of the children !
" there is a very real biological rational reason to protect your offspring from the real world until they are able enough physically and mentally to protect themselves .
evolution favors the survival rate of organisms that actively protect their offspring , where that set of offspring is small , such as us humans .
so " think of the children !
" is an overbearing , overwhelming , messy , intrusive impulse that can not be reasoned with .
and yet it makes 100 \ % sense biologicallyall i 'm saying is that " think of the children !
" might be the butt of every slashdot joke , but it is also an irrational " hysteria " that you need to make peace with and accept , because it is simply never , ever going away .
because it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense , but from a completely different point of view , a point of view that trumps all other points of view : the biological imperativeslook at it this way : without children , all the arguments you could ever have about rights and freedoms wo n't matter one bit if there 's no one here to inherit the society and the government you tried to improve .
the health and well being of the generation that comes after you is all you leave in this world , on an individual and a societal level .
so it really is of the highest importance that you do your best to protect children until they can fend for themselvesthis simple , brutal logic defeats and overrules all other arguments you can possibly make on the matter " think of the children " reigns supreme .
it is your job to simply accept this biological imperative , as messy and intrusive as it is , as messy and intrusive as the need to visit the bathroom , the desire to fornicate , and the need to shove sustenance into your mouth : creatures that have few offspring and act protective of their children have an evolutionary advantage over those that don'tno matter how overzealous that protective instinct is , it will persist due to the laws of evolution , and you need to make peace with it and accept it : its never going away</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try to reason with the six foot scaly mother that shows up to defend those eggs.
you have just as much chance of defeating the "think of the children!
" irrational impulse of homo sapiens.
because as members of the ancient order of crocodilians has discovered, like many mammalians, is that if you invest in only a few offspring (as opposed to the fish and amphibian strategy of "fire and forget" 10,000 eggs), then it is a survival advantage to be overprotective of your childrenthe irrational desire to protect children from the various dangerous scenarios of adult IS an irrational desire.
much like the irrational desire to feed.
or the irrational desire to fornicatein other words: not so rational from a point of view of principles and concepts, but very rational from the point of view of the preservation of and continuation of life: take care of your childrenbiological imperatives trump all high minded concepts.
principles and concepts work only when they aren't interfering with biological imperatives.
as an example: every right, freedom, and sense of decency you hold dear and valuable in your mind is just one food riot away from being completely violated without any recourse to justiceno police, court system, or government body can remain coherent when those police, judges, and government bureaucrats are busier trying to procure some foodso pay attention to biological imperatives, they matter a hell of a whole lot.
ignore them at the peril of losing all progress we've ever made in human societyone of which being: "think of the children!
" there is a very real biological rational reason to protect your offspring from the real world until they are able enough physically and mentally to protect themselves.
evolution favors the survival rate of organisms that actively protect their offspring, where that set of offspring is small, such as us humans.
so "think of the children!
" is an overbearing, overwhelming, messy, intrusive impulse that cannot be reasoned with.
and yet it makes 100\% sense biologicallyall i'm saying is that "think of the children!
" might be the butt of every slashdot joke, but it is also an irrational "hysteria" that you need to make peace with and accept, because it is simply never, ever going away.
because it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, but from a completely different point of view, a point of view that trumps all other points of view: the biological imperativeslook at it this way: without children, all the arguments you could ever have about rights and freedoms won't matter one bit if there's no one here to inherit the society and the government you tried to improve.
the health and well being of the generation that comes after you is all you leave in this world, on an individual and a societal level.
so it really is of the highest importance that you do your best to protect children until they can fend for themselvesthis simple, brutal logic defeats and overrules all other arguments you can possibly make on the matter"think of the children" reigns supreme.
it is your job to simply accept this biological imperative, as messy and intrusive as it is, as messy and intrusive as the need to visit the bathroom, the desire to fornicate, and the need to shove sustenance into your mouth: creatures that have few offspring and act protective of their children have an evolutionary advantage over those that don'tno matter how overzealous that protective instinct is, it will persist due to the laws of evolution, and you need to make peace with it and accept it: its never going away</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30361472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30372606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30362458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_105253_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30372606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30358836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30362458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30359074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353552
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356276
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30357074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30351800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30356972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30354394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30361472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30355268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30352854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_105253.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_105253.30353668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
