<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_11_1351208</id>
	<title>Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sites</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260544800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"You may recall <a href="//slashdot.org/story/09/12/08/0057253/TSAs-Sloppy-Redacting-Reveals-All">the TSA demonstrating how tech-savvy it is</a> by releasing a document with redactions intact. Now three Republican lawmakers are asking <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/tsa-leak-2">what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document</a> (e.g. Cryptome and Wikileaks). In <a href="http://www.wired.com/images\_blogs/threatlevel/2009/12/congressional-letter-on-tsa-leak.pdf">a letter to the DHS</a> (PDF), Charles Dent (R-PA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Peter T. King (R-NY) asked, 'How has <em>[sic]</em> the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?' And they asked if the DHS is 'considering issuing new regulations pursuant to its authority in <a href="http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc\_sec\_49\_00000114----000-.html">Section 114 of Title 49</a>, United States Code, and are criminal penalties necessary or desirable to ensure such information is not reposted in the future?' King is the representative who <a href="//politics.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/0126220/US-Congressman-Announces-Plans-To-Probe-Wikileaks">announcing a probe into Wikileaks</a> after the half million 9/11 pager messages were released."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " You may recall the TSA demonstrating how tech-savvy it is by releasing a document with redactions intact .
Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what 's being done to prosecute those hosting the document ( e.g .
Cryptome and Wikileaks ) .
In a letter to the DHS ( PDF ) , Charles Dent ( R-PA ) , Gus Bilirakis ( R-FL ) , and Peter T. King ( R-NY ) asked , 'How has [ sic ] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites , and what legal action , if any , can be taken to compel its removal ?
' And they asked if the DHS is 'considering issuing new regulations pursuant to its authority in Section 114 of Title 49 , United States Code , and are criminal penalties necessary or desirable to ensure such information is not reposted in the future ?
' King is the representative who announcing a probe into Wikileaks after the half million 9/11 pager messages were released .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "You may recall the TSA demonstrating how tech-savvy it is by releasing a document with redactions intact.
Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document (e.g.
Cryptome and Wikileaks).
In a letter to the DHS (PDF), Charles Dent (R-PA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Peter T. King (R-NY) asked, 'How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?
' And they asked if the DHS is 'considering issuing new regulations pursuant to its authority in Section 114 of Title 49, United States Code, and are criminal penalties necessary or desirable to ensure such information is not reposted in the future?
' King is the representative who announcing a probe into Wikileaks after the half million 9/11 pager messages were released.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30413908</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>sdkee</author>
	<datestamp>1260632940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals.

&gt;Being a criminal and being a hero aren't mutually exclusive things

It is a sign of the decay of society that this is becoming more true.  Now we have a nearly zero correlation between the two.  We are even now beginning to see *negative* correlations between "illegal" and unethical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The people who exposed this are heroes , not criminals .
&gt; Being a criminal and being a hero are n't mutually exclusive things It is a sign of the decay of society that this is becoming more true .
Now we have a nearly zero correlation between the two .
We are even now beginning to see * negative * correlations between " illegal " and unethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals.
&gt;Being a criminal and being a hero aren't mutually exclusive things

It is a sign of the decay of society that this is becoming more true.
Now we have a nearly zero correlation between the two.
We are even now beginning to see *negative* correlations between "illegal" and unethical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402982</id>
	<title>Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth</title>
	<author>ehrichweiss</author>
	<datestamp>1260552360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One has to wonder how they'd react if we all just posted the redacted PDF everywhere along with instructions on how to bypass the redactions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One has to wonder how they 'd react if we all just posted the redacted PDF everywhere along with instructions on how to bypass the redactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One has to wonder how they'd react if we all just posted the redacted PDF everywhere along with instructions on how to bypass the redactions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402822</id>
	<title>Re:Sic?</title>
	<author>babblefrog</author>
	<datestamp>1260551820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm thinking that should have been plural: "How have..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking that should have been plural : " How have... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking that should have been plural: "How have..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402720</id>
	<title>Re:Sic?</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1260551340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since it's two organizations being referred to (DHS and TSA) it should be plural: "how have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." If it was only one, "How has<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." would have been correct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it 's two organizations being referred to ( DHS and TSA ) it should be plural : " how have ... " If it was only one , " How has ... " would have been correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it's two organizations being referred to (DHS and TSA) it should be plural: "how have ..." If it was only one, "How has ..." would have been correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402470</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear A Whole Lot of Patriots,</p><p>Although our current prison population is higher than some of our smaller states, we feel more can be done. For this reason we are continuing with out policy of trying to create more laws, to fill more prisons, in order to satisfy the needs of private corporations benefiting from your tax money. We certainly could spend that money on better education, but we do not feel this in any way benefits the needs of the private corporations in which we have vested interests.</p><p>We also appreciate your arguments about doing a better job in protecting national secrets. We find it much more expedient to prosecute patriots, rather than 'cleaning up our mess'.</p><p>A Senator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear A Whole Lot of Patriots,Although our current prison population is higher than some of our smaller states , we feel more can be done .
For this reason we are continuing with out policy of trying to create more laws , to fill more prisons , in order to satisfy the needs of private corporations benefiting from your tax money .
We certainly could spend that money on better education , but we do not feel this in any way benefits the needs of the private corporations in which we have vested interests.We also appreciate your arguments about doing a better job in protecting national secrets .
We find it much more expedient to prosecute patriots , rather than 'cleaning up our mess'.A Senator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear A Whole Lot of Patriots,Although our current prison population is higher than some of our smaller states, we feel more can be done.
For this reason we are continuing with out policy of trying to create more laws, to fill more prisons, in order to satisfy the needs of private corporations benefiting from your tax money.
We certainly could spend that money on better education, but we do not feel this in any way benefits the needs of the private corporations in which we have vested interests.We also appreciate your arguments about doing a better job in protecting national secrets.
We find it much more expedient to prosecute patriots, rather than 'cleaning up our mess'.A Senator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405814</id>
	<title>Re:Retards in office.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260563760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country? Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can <em>remove</em> data from the internet.</p></div><p>They think that annotating a PDF document by drawing black boxes over sekrit stuff constitutes "removing data" from it...so why shouldn't they think they can take an eraser to the internet?</p><p>The way to deal with stupid people like this is to meet them on their own level. For example, Wikileaks could publish all offishial gummint sekrits in black type with a black background. It would be easy to make most politicians and bureaucrats believe that this left their secrets totally inaccessible. After all, to read the text, <em>someone would have to figure out how to change the color of the font or the background in their web browser</em>! I'm quite sure that 99.9\% of all government officials could be easily convinced that this is impossible. Because to them, <em>it is</em>.</p><p>
Seriously, I think there's a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the public's technical ignorance by making the government look like the innocent victim of a sophisticated cracker attack. The next step is to convince the public that we need stricter laws to punish these criminal hackers.
</p><p>Even news organizations that you might expect to know better are falling for this line. I listened to an NPR commentator this morning who described it as a <em>computer error</em>. Clearly, the guy was clueless. (Well, yes, it was an error, and it was done with a computer, but what an uninformative thing to say!) He then went on to further characterize the "error" by saying "...apparently, there was information inadvertently left in the background" that was then "retrieved" by hacker types using sophisticated techniques. He gave the impression that what was done was <em>hard</em>&mdash;something like recovering data from an erased disk. In reality, the complexity of the government's error and the technique to reveal the hidden information was more akin to putting yellow post-it notes over the "sensitive" stuff, and then accusing people of crackery when they peeled off the stickies.</p><p>
By the way, I thought that from a purely aesthetic and theoretical perspective, the ATF badge was the one with the clearest resolution. Not that I am suggesting anyone <em>make</em> such a badge from the image...except as art, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country ?
Like , seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet.They think that annotating a PDF document by drawing black boxes over sekrit stuff constitutes " removing data " from it...so why should n't they think they can take an eraser to the internet ? The way to deal with stupid people like this is to meet them on their own level .
For example , Wikileaks could publish all offishial gummint sekrits in black type with a black background .
It would be easy to make most politicians and bureaucrats believe that this left their secrets totally inaccessible .
After all , to read the text , someone would have to figure out how to change the color of the font or the background in their web browser !
I 'm quite sure that 99.9 \ % of all government officials could be easily convinced that this is impossible .
Because to them , it is .
Seriously , I think there 's a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the public 's technical ignorance by making the government look like the innocent victim of a sophisticated cracker attack .
The next step is to convince the public that we need stricter laws to punish these criminal hackers .
Even news organizations that you might expect to know better are falling for this line .
I listened to an NPR commentator this morning who described it as a computer error .
Clearly , the guy was clueless .
( Well , yes , it was an error , and it was done with a computer , but what an uninformative thing to say !
) He then went on to further characterize the " error " by saying " ...apparently , there was information inadvertently left in the background " that was then " retrieved " by hacker types using sophisticated techniques .
He gave the impression that what was done was hard    something like recovering data from an erased disk .
In reality , the complexity of the government 's error and the technique to reveal the hidden information was more akin to putting yellow post-it notes over the " sensitive " stuff , and then accusing people of crackery when they peeled off the stickies .
By the way , I thought that from a purely aesthetic and theoretical perspective , the ATF badge was the one with the clearest resolution .
Not that I am suggesting anyone make such a badge from the image...except as art , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country?
Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet.They think that annotating a PDF document by drawing black boxes over sekrit stuff constitutes "removing data" from it...so why shouldn't they think they can take an eraser to the internet?The way to deal with stupid people like this is to meet them on their own level.
For example, Wikileaks could publish all offishial gummint sekrits in black type with a black background.
It would be easy to make most politicians and bureaucrats believe that this left their secrets totally inaccessible.
After all, to read the text, someone would have to figure out how to change the color of the font or the background in their web browser!
I'm quite sure that 99.9\% of all government officials could be easily convinced that this is impossible.
Because to them, it is.
Seriously, I think there's a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the public's technical ignorance by making the government look like the innocent victim of a sophisticated cracker attack.
The next step is to convince the public that we need stricter laws to punish these criminal hackers.
Even news organizations that you might expect to know better are falling for this line.
I listened to an NPR commentator this morning who described it as a computer error.
Clearly, the guy was clueless.
(Well, yes, it was an error, and it was done with a computer, but what an uninformative thing to say!
) He then went on to further characterize the "error" by saying "...apparently, there was information inadvertently left in the background" that was then "retrieved" by hacker types using sophisticated techniques.
He gave the impression that what was done was hard—something like recovering data from an erased disk.
In reality, the complexity of the government's error and the technique to reveal the hidden information was more akin to putting yellow post-it notes over the "sensitive" stuff, and then accusing people of crackery when they peeled off the stickies.
By the way, I thought that from a purely aesthetic and theoretical perspective, the ATF badge was the one with the clearest resolution.
Not that I am suggesting anyone make such a badge from the image...except as art, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404426</id>
	<title>This Is Similar To Online Piracy</title>
	<author>webguy07</author>
	<datestamp>1260557640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They try to crack down on people illegally downloading on the internet but it is very difficult because there is so many places to monitor. Every time they do succeed in shutting down a site which is very hard because they are often in places where the u.s. can't infiltrate unless declaring war. Obviously they don't want to got this far and at this point its not that important. So they will most likely just complain a lot and not really do much to change the situation but make it a bit harder on leaks.



<a href="http://jonk1234.storeblogs.com/" title="storeblogs.com" rel="nofollow">http://jonk1234.storeblogs.com/</a> [storeblogs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They try to crack down on people illegally downloading on the internet but it is very difficult because there is so many places to monitor .
Every time they do succeed in shutting down a site which is very hard because they are often in places where the u.s. ca n't infiltrate unless declaring war .
Obviously they do n't want to got this far and at this point its not that important .
So they will most likely just complain a lot and not really do much to change the situation but make it a bit harder on leaks .
http : //jonk1234.storeblogs.com/ [ storeblogs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They try to crack down on people illegally downloading on the internet but it is very difficult because there is so many places to monitor.
Every time they do succeed in shutting down a site which is very hard because they are often in places where the u.s. can't infiltrate unless declaring war.
Obviously they don't want to got this far and at this point its not that important.
So they will most likely just complain a lot and not really do much to change the situation but make it a bit harder on leaks.
http://jonk1234.storeblogs.com/ [storeblogs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402922</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260552180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A) That&rsquo;s what Saddam said. Look how well that worked out.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>B) That&rsquo;s what Osama said. And he was right.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>C) What if it&rsquo;s in a darknet. With many copies. That will be next to impossible to attack.</p><p>D) I say, if they want to take the hoster down, then host it on their own servers and watch them taking themselves down.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A ) That    s what Saddam said .
Look how well that worked out .
; ) B ) That    s what Osama said .
And he was right .
; ) C ) What if it    s in a darknet .
With many copies .
That will be next to impossible to attack.D ) I say , if they want to take the hoster down , then host it on their own servers and watch them taking themselves down .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A) That’s what Saddam said.
Look how well that worked out.
;)B) That’s what Osama said.
And he was right.
;)C) What if it’s in a darknet.
With many copies.
That will be next to impossible to attack.D) I say, if they want to take the hoster down, then host it on their own servers and watch them taking themselves down.
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402310</id>
	<title>Re:Like Google CEO Says...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260549480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not what the CEO of Google said. If you're going to put quotes around something, make sure what's between the quotes is at least close word wise to what the person said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not what the CEO of Google said .
If you 're going to put quotes around something , make sure what 's between the quotes is at least close word wise to what the person said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not what the CEO of Google said.
If you're going to put quotes around something, make sure what's between the quotes is at least close word wise to what the person said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406260</id>
	<title>They are oh so brilliant people. Inconceivable!</title>
	<author>kegon</author>
	<datestamp>1260523140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You fools! Stop wasting your time debating liberty and freedom of speech.</p><p>This is clearly a cunning plan. Now the terrorists <b>think</b> they know which nationalities are not checked and how to beat the scanners they will swarm into the country. However, super intelligent TSA operatives will spot them a mile away and arrest the lot.</p><p>I guess the plan was too good; you all bought into it.</p><p>It's the only way that makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You fools !
Stop wasting your time debating liberty and freedom of speech.This is clearly a cunning plan .
Now the terrorists think they know which nationalities are not checked and how to beat the scanners they will swarm into the country .
However , super intelligent TSA operatives will spot them a mile away and arrest the lot.I guess the plan was too good ; you all bought into it.It 's the only way that makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fools!
Stop wasting your time debating liberty and freedom of speech.This is clearly a cunning plan.
Now the terrorists think they know which nationalities are not checked and how to beat the scanners they will swarm into the country.
However, super intelligent TSA operatives will spot them a mile away and arrest the lot.I guess the plan was too good; you all bought into it.It's the only way that makes sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402932</id>
	<title>Better process is the solution, not censorship</title>
	<author>valderost</author>
	<datestamp>1260552240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The genie is out of the bottle on this one.  The document won't disappear, and even if it becomes illegal to host it, it'll continue circulating.  The legislators need to accept this as a "teachable moment" and figure out ways to prevent it from recurring, perhaps through improvements in process and education of the folks producing the secure content.
</p><p>
Beyond "use better redaction", process improvements mean inserting a few steps between redaction and publishing.
</p><p>
The redacted document should go through a QA/review process that ensures it contains only content appropriate to the intended audience.  The administrative review was undoubtedly done, but not a technical review.  It's no secret that electronic documents have hidden data, whether it's redacted or whether it's document metadata, and there's no excuse for these not be examined as part of the release process.
</p><p>
The process should also ensure that the document is being posted only to the appropriate audience.  If the document is meant to instruct contractors on security practices, then restrict access to the document so only those contractors can get it.
</p><p>
And now that some of the TSA's security practices are public knowledge, we'll have an opportunity to analyze and share concerns.  A lot of this stuff is easily written off as security theater, but when decisions on who and who not to screen hinge on politics, something's clearly wrong and perhaps the legislators need to look at that instead of trying to undo this leak through unenforceable legislation.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The genie is out of the bottle on this one .
The document wo n't disappear , and even if it becomes illegal to host it , it 'll continue circulating .
The legislators need to accept this as a " teachable moment " and figure out ways to prevent it from recurring , perhaps through improvements in process and education of the folks producing the secure content .
Beyond " use better redaction " , process improvements mean inserting a few steps between redaction and publishing .
The redacted document should go through a QA/review process that ensures it contains only content appropriate to the intended audience .
The administrative review was undoubtedly done , but not a technical review .
It 's no secret that electronic documents have hidden data , whether it 's redacted or whether it 's document metadata , and there 's no excuse for these not be examined as part of the release process .
The process should also ensure that the document is being posted only to the appropriate audience .
If the document is meant to instruct contractors on security practices , then restrict access to the document so only those contractors can get it .
And now that some of the TSA 's security practices are public knowledge , we 'll have an opportunity to analyze and share concerns .
A lot of this stuff is easily written off as security theater , but when decisions on who and who not to screen hinge on politics , something 's clearly wrong and perhaps the legislators need to look at that instead of trying to undo this leak through unenforceable legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The genie is out of the bottle on this one.
The document won't disappear, and even if it becomes illegal to host it, it'll continue circulating.
The legislators need to accept this as a "teachable moment" and figure out ways to prevent it from recurring, perhaps through improvements in process and education of the folks producing the secure content.
Beyond "use better redaction", process improvements mean inserting a few steps between redaction and publishing.
The redacted document should go through a QA/review process that ensures it contains only content appropriate to the intended audience.
The administrative review was undoubtedly done, but not a technical review.
It's no secret that electronic documents have hidden data, whether it's redacted or whether it's document metadata, and there's no excuse for these not be examined as part of the release process.
The process should also ensure that the document is being posted only to the appropriate audience.
If the document is meant to instruct contractors on security practices, then restrict access to the document so only those contractors can get it.
And now that some of the TSA's security practices are public knowledge, we'll have an opportunity to analyze and share concerns.
A lot of this stuff is easily written off as security theater, but when decisions on who and who not to screen hinge on politics, something's clearly wrong and perhaps the legislators need to look at that instead of trying to undo this leak through unenforceable legislation.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407932</id>
	<title>Re:Surely they're right to ask</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1260531360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not even clear a crime was committed here, or at least the DOJ would be on fairly shaky ground to try and prosecute the person that ultimately published it or wiki leaks.</p><p>If the organization that released it did not see fit to fully black out the information it was suppose to, then would it not be the idiot that failed to fully black out the secret information that is legally on the hook. It was their negligence that lead to the secret information being published in to the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not even clear a crime was committed here , or at least the DOJ would be on fairly shaky ground to try and prosecute the person that ultimately published it or wiki leaks.If the organization that released it did not see fit to fully black out the information it was suppose to , then would it not be the idiot that failed to fully black out the secret information that is legally on the hook .
It was their negligence that lead to the secret information being published in to the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not even clear a crime was committed here, or at least the DOJ would be on fairly shaky ground to try and prosecute the person that ultimately published it or wiki leaks.If the organization that released it did not see fit to fully black out the information it was suppose to, then would it not be the idiot that failed to fully black out the secret information that is legally on the hook.
It was their negligence that lead to the secret information being published in to the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403998</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260556020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who leaked this were EMPLOYEES.  By leaking the documents they SHOULD be prosecuted.  Its the same as any military member leaking information on any top secret project!  They get court marshaled! The employees probably didn't post the documents to wikileaks, but even leaking them to a friend or relative is a violation of a contract they signed, even after they leave that job! When you're dealing with the government, breaking a contract sometime means you are breaking the law!</p><p>These lawmakers are asking the "What the hell are you doing?!" questions that more lawmakers should be asking of the executive branch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who leaked this were EMPLOYEES .
By leaking the documents they SHOULD be prosecuted .
Its the same as any military member leaking information on any top secret project !
They get court marshaled !
The employees probably did n't post the documents to wikileaks , but even leaking them to a friend or relative is a violation of a contract they signed , even after they leave that job !
When you 're dealing with the government , breaking a contract sometime means you are breaking the law ! These lawmakers are asking the " What the hell are you doing ? !
" questions that more lawmakers should be asking of the executive branch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who leaked this were EMPLOYEES.
By leaking the documents they SHOULD be prosecuted.
Its the same as any military member leaking information on any top secret project!
They get court marshaled!
The employees probably didn't post the documents to wikileaks, but even leaking them to a friend or relative is a violation of a contract they signed, even after they leave that job!
When you're dealing with the government, breaking a contract sometime means you are breaking the law!These lawmakers are asking the "What the hell are you doing?!
" questions that more lawmakers should be asking of the executive branch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402500</id>
	<title>Grammar Appears Correct To Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The grammar in the OP's quote was correct, it is in the present-perfect tense. Read it again without [sic] in the middle and it will sound fine:</p><p> <i>How has the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?</i> </p><p>Link for reference: <a href="http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/prperfectense.htm" title="about.com" rel="nofollow">http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/prperfectense.htm</a> [about.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The grammar in the OP 's quote was correct , it is in the present-perfect tense .
Read it again without [ sic ] in the middle and it will sound fine : How has the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites , and what legal action , if any , can be taken to compel its removal ?
Link for reference : http : //grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/prperfectense.htm [ about.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The grammar in the OP's quote was correct, it is in the present-perfect tense.
Read it again without [sic] in the middle and it will sound fine: How has the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?
Link for reference: http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/prperfectense.htm [about.com] 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406542</id>
	<title>Bilirakis, Dent, King</title>
	<author>$beirdo</author>
	<datestamp>1260524160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is, in fact, a technical term for these legislators:</p><p>Douchebags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is , in fact , a technical term for these legislators : Douchebags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is, in fact, a technical term for these legislators:Douchebags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403192</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL, Republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL , Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL, Republicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402864</id>
	<title>So if you fail...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260552000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you prosecute others because they laugh at you?</p><p>You know what&rsquo;s great about this?</p><p>1. That way, they won&rsquo;t ever learn from it, and continue to make stuff available for us.<br>2. Since they can by definition never remove it from the Internet, once it&rsquo;s out in the public, their chase will never stop.</p><p>The stuff is already floating though the P2P nets. Just wait until someone creates a distributed Wikileaks site inside a darknet. Try to shut <em>that</em> down! ^^</p><p>I hope they get even more arrogant, and start putting their whole database in the open, with a redaction system based on black rectangles. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you prosecute others because they laugh at you ? You know what    s great about this ? 1 .
That way , they won    t ever learn from it , and continue to make stuff available for us.2 .
Since they can by definition never remove it from the Internet , once it    s out in the public , their chase will never stop.The stuff is already floating though the P2P nets .
Just wait until someone creates a distributed Wikileaks site inside a darknet .
Try to shut that down !
^ ^ I hope they get even more arrogant , and start putting their whole database in the open , with a redaction system based on black rectangles .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you prosecute others because they laugh at you?You know what’s great about this?1.
That way, they won’t ever learn from it, and continue to make stuff available for us.2.
Since they can by definition never remove it from the Internet, once it’s out in the public, their chase will never stop.The stuff is already floating though the P2P nets.
Just wait until someone creates a distributed Wikileaks site inside a darknet.
Try to shut that down!
^^I hope they get even more arrogant, and start putting their whole database in the open, with a redaction system based on black rectangles.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</id>
	<title>Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260548700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear My Government, It's Officers, Agents, And All Of That:</p><p>You do not own the internet. You do not control the internet. You screwed up by releasing sensitive information to the public through lawful channels, via a lawful request, that was not in any way fraudulent or deceiving. Man up to this, and figure out how to avoid the problem in the future like every other self-respecting government would -- instead of trying to throw your citizens to the wolves without a trial, or god only knows what else you're planning.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Whole Lot of Patriots</p><p>P.S. Those badges look like something out of a cereal box. Take this as an opportunity to make them actually look like something better than what you'd expect from a first year graphic design student. Or use psychic paper. Your choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear My Government , It 's Officers , Agents , And All Of That : You do not own the internet .
You do not control the internet .
You screwed up by releasing sensitive information to the public through lawful channels , via a lawful request , that was not in any way fraudulent or deceiving .
Man up to this , and figure out how to avoid the problem in the future like every other self-respecting government would -- instead of trying to throw your citizens to the wolves without a trial , or god only knows what else you 're planning.Sincerely,A Whole Lot of PatriotsP.S .
Those badges look like something out of a cereal box .
Take this as an opportunity to make them actually look like something better than what you 'd expect from a first year graphic design student .
Or use psychic paper .
Your choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear My Government, It's Officers, Agents, And All Of That:You do not own the internet.
You do not control the internet.
You screwed up by releasing sensitive information to the public through lawful channels, via a lawful request, that was not in any way fraudulent or deceiving.
Man up to this, and figure out how to avoid the problem in the future like every other self-respecting government would -- instead of trying to throw your citizens to the wolves without a trial, or god only knows what else you're planning.Sincerely,A Whole Lot of PatriotsP.S.
Those badges look like something out of a cereal box.
Take this as an opportunity to make them actually look like something better than what you'd expect from a first year graphic design student.
Or use psychic paper.
Your choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403538</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like something a Socialist regime would do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like something a Socialist regime would do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like something a Socialist regime would do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405774</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1260563580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Being a criminal and being a hero aren't mutually exclusive things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who exposed this are heroes , not criminals .
Being a criminal and being a hero are n't mutually exclusive things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals.
Being a criminal and being a hero aren't mutually exclusive things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402626</id>
	<title>So think pre-computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if a government agency sent a printed press release out with Post-It notes stuck over sensitive bits, would they be surprised if someone pulled off the Post-Its and read what was underneath?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if a government agency sent a printed press release out with Post-It notes stuck over sensitive bits , would they be surprised if someone pulled off the Post-Its and read what was underneath ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if a government agency sent a printed press release out with Post-It notes stuck over sensitive bits, would they be surprised if someone pulled off the Post-Its and read what was underneath?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402146</id>
	<title>Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260548820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, security by obscurity, that <i>always</i> works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , security by obscurity , that always works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, security by obscurity, that always works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406164</id>
	<title>Exploitive</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1260522540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So are these exploitive Congresscritters, anything for 5 minutes TV time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are these exploitive Congresscritters , anything for 5 minutes TV time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are these exploitive Congresscritters, anything for 5 minutes TV time!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402828</id>
	<title>Hey here's an idea...</title>
	<author>Lord Dreamshaper</author>
	<datestamp>1260551820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document</i> <br> <br>Why don't you ask what steps are being taken to make us trust our politicians and corporations so that sites like Wikileaks become moot?<br> <br>Hint: Going after Wikileaks et al. ain't one of those steps and shows a shocking lack of understanding of the purpose of the first amendment or the ephemeral nature of the internet...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what 's being done to prosecute those hosting the document Why do n't you ask what steps are being taken to make us trust our politicians and corporations so that sites like Wikileaks become moot ?
Hint : Going after Wikileaks et al .
ai n't one of those steps and shows a shocking lack of understanding of the purpose of the first amendment or the ephemeral nature of the internet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document  Why don't you ask what steps are being taken to make us trust our politicians and corporations so that sites like Wikileaks become moot?
Hint: Going after Wikileaks et al.
ain't one of those steps and shows a shocking lack of understanding of the purpose of the first amendment or the ephemeral nature of the internet...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402928</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about it this way though. Now we have the names of 3 lawmakers of which to start probing into their private lives INTENSELY.</p><p>This certainly applies to them:</p><p>Methinks thou dost protest too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it this way though .
Now we have the names of 3 lawmakers of which to start probing into their private lives INTENSELY.This certainly applies to them : Methinks thou dost protest too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it this way though.
Now we have the names of 3 lawmakers of which to start probing into their private lives INTENSELY.This certainly applies to them:Methinks thou dost protest too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402130</id>
	<title>I would think the first amendment would cover this</title>
	<author>ElSupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1260548760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think posting words would be covered under free speach. I doubt they are copyrighted. Plus with the internet you can host outside the USA. But I guess that didn't work for The Pirate Bay so who knows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think posting words would be covered under free speach .
I doubt they are copyrighted .
Plus with the internet you can host outside the USA .
But I guess that did n't work for The Pirate Bay so who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think posting words would be covered under free speach.
I doubt they are copyrighted.
Plus with the internet you can host outside the USA.
But I guess that didn't work for The Pirate Bay so who knows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407148</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1260526860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can't possibly.</p><p>If republicans want less government (which they do), then they don't want a police state, defense spending, or war.</p><p>Politicians, on the other hand, want votes, and one of the easier ways to garner votes is through fear. A police state, defense spending, and war stir up enough fear to gain votes, but these concepts have nothing to do with being a republican.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't possibly.If republicans want less government ( which they do ) , then they do n't want a police state , defense spending , or war.Politicians , on the other hand , want votes , and one of the easier ways to garner votes is through fear .
A police state , defense spending , and war stir up enough fear to gain votes , but these concepts have nothing to do with being a republican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't possibly.If republicans want less government (which they do), then they don't want a police state, defense spending, or war.Politicians, on the other hand, want votes, and one of the easier ways to garner votes is through fear.
A police state, defense spending, and war stir up enough fear to gain votes, but these concepts have nothing to do with being a republican.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403174</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the bifurcation of the right.</p><p>When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority' in Congress, we remained the party of small, local government (our founding principles).</p><p>When the Democrats screwed up so bad that they lost control to the Republicans, there emerged the neo-con - EVANGELICAL (in a jam-it-down-their-throats way, not a religious way, although a large proportion of them ARE religious) conservatism.  It's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian "just generally leave us alone" original party platform.  This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor' plan, and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan' that would have had Republicans even from the 70's and 80's going WTF?</p><p>Sucks, and I think that's most of what's wrong with the Republican party now, but there it is.</p><p>FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers.  Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the bifurcation of the right.When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority ' in Congress , we remained the party of small , local government ( our founding principles ) .When the Democrats screwed up so bad that they lost control to the Republicans , there emerged the neo-con - EVANGELICAL ( in a jam-it-down-their-throats way , not a religious way , although a large proportion of them ARE religious ) conservatism .
It 's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian " just generally leave us alone " original party platform .
This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor ' plan , and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan ' that would have had Republicans even from the 70 's and 80 's going WTF ? Sucks , and I think that 's most of what 's wrong with the Republican party now , but there it is.FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers .
Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying " oh yeah , I 'll vote with them !
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the bifurcation of the right.When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority' in Congress, we remained the party of small, local government (our founding principles).When the Democrats screwed up so bad that they lost control to the Republicans, there emerged the neo-con - EVANGELICAL (in a jam-it-down-their-throats way, not a religious way, although a large proportion of them ARE religious) conservatism.
It's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian "just generally leave us alone" original party platform.
This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor' plan, and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan' that would have had Republicans even from the 70's and 80's going WTF?Sucks, and I think that's most of what's wrong with the Republican party now, but there it is.FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers.
Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!
"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402564</id>
	<title>Re:Like Google CEO Says...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont think that you can be addicted to ibogain....<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine#Treatment\_for\_opiate\_addiction</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont think that you can be addicted to ibogain....http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine # Treatment \ _for \ _opiate \ _addiction</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont think that you can be addicted to ibogain....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine#Treatment\_for\_opiate\_addiction</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30426422</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>jesset77</author>
	<datestamp>1260710460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ol> <li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Barbara Streisand</a> [wikipedia.org] </li></ol></div><p>Am I the only one who has noticed that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Park:\_Bigger,\_Longer\_\%26\_Uncut" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Cartman coerced a malfunctioning censorship chip to electrocute people by invoking the name of Barbara Streisand</a> [wikipedia.org] 4 years before she managed to do something completely different in order to put her name on the very idea of backfiring censorship? Matt and Trey really need to stop being so god-damned right all the time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Barbara Streisand [ wikipedia.org ] Am I the only one who has noticed that Cartman coerced a malfunctioning censorship chip to electrocute people by invoking the name of Barbara Streisand [ wikipedia.org ] 4 years before she managed to do something completely different in order to put her name on the very idea of backfiring censorship ?
Matt and Trey really need to stop being so god-damned right all the time .
; D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Barbara Streisand [wikipedia.org] Am I the only one who has noticed that Cartman coerced a malfunctioning censorship chip to electrocute people by invoking the name of Barbara Streisand [wikipedia.org] 4 years before she managed to do something completely different in order to put her name on the very idea of backfiring censorship?
Matt and Trey really need to stop being so god-damned right all the time.
;D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403562</id>
	<title>What do they always say when this happens???</title>
	<author>CannedTurkey</author>
	<datestamp>1260554400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yeah, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , " If you 've done nothing wrong , you 've got nothing to fear .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574</id>
	<title>Sic?</title>
	<author>kevin\_conaway</author>
	<datestamp>1260550800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration...</p></div><p>Why was the sic added to this statement?  I'm not an English major but I don't find that sentence to use any archaic or incorrect spellings nor do I find the grammar to be wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : How has [ sic ] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration...Why was the sic added to this statement ?
I 'm not an English major but I do n't find that sentence to use any archaic or incorrect spellings nor do I find the grammar to be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary:How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration...Why was the sic added to this statement?
I'm not an English major but I don't find that sentence to use any archaic or incorrect spellings nor do I find the grammar to be wrong.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406782</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1260525420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There really is no option (with respect to a viable political party) for someone who believes in liberty in all areas. The democrats want to take away economic liberty.</i> </p><p>Well, you're obviously not talking about healthcare --- since you don't want that delivered by the free market.  So what specifically are you talking about?</p><p>Cap &amp; Trade (a conservative plan for pricing pollution externalities, ripped right from the libertarian playbook)?  Higher taxes so we can balance the budget?  A single one-time economic stimulus bill that will probably never be repeated?  Or the stupid TARP thing that was initiated by a Republican president, and was still probably necessary because the alternative was not economic freedom, but economic destruction.</p><p>Seriously, be specific.  I know it's fashionable to reflexively bash the Democratic party on Slashdot, but you were able to give specifics about how the Republicans fucked us.  Given that the Libertarian party has no chance of ever doing anything for anyone, anywhere, what would you ask the Democrats to do differently?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There really is no option ( with respect to a viable political party ) for someone who believes in liberty in all areas .
The democrats want to take away economic liberty .
Well , you 're obviously not talking about healthcare --- since you do n't want that delivered by the free market .
So what specifically are you talking about ? Cap &amp; Trade ( a conservative plan for pricing pollution externalities , ripped right from the libertarian playbook ) ?
Higher taxes so we can balance the budget ?
A single one-time economic stimulus bill that will probably never be repeated ?
Or the stupid TARP thing that was initiated by a Republican president , and was still probably necessary because the alternative was not economic freedom , but economic destruction.Seriously , be specific .
I know it 's fashionable to reflexively bash the Democratic party on Slashdot , but you were able to give specifics about how the Republicans fucked us .
Given that the Libertarian party has no chance of ever doing anything for anyone , anywhere , what would you ask the Democrats to do differently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really is no option (with respect to a viable political party) for someone who believes in liberty in all areas.
The democrats want to take away economic liberty.
Well, you're obviously not talking about healthcare --- since you don't want that delivered by the free market.
So what specifically are you talking about?Cap &amp; Trade (a conservative plan for pricing pollution externalities, ripped right from the libertarian playbook)?
Higher taxes so we can balance the budget?
A single one-time economic stimulus bill that will probably never be repeated?
Or the stupid TARP thing that was initiated by a Republican president, and was still probably necessary because the alternative was not economic freedom, but economic destruction.Seriously, be specific.
I know it's fashionable to reflexively bash the Democratic party on Slashdot, but you were able to give specifics about how the Republicans fucked us.
Given that the Libertarian party has no chance of ever doing anything for anyone, anywhere, what would you ask the Democrats to do differently?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407992</id>
	<title>Re:More important question is who TSA fired for th</title>
	<author>Tangential</author>
	<datestamp>1260531720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly though, no one is apparently interested in the answers to those questions...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly though , no one is apparently interested in the answers to those questions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly though, no one is apparently interested in the answers to those questions...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402608</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers.
<br> <br>
You can't remove it from the web completely but you can make it incredibly hard for anyone in the US to access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers .
You ca n't remove it from the web completely but you can make it incredibly hard for anyone in the US to access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers.
You can't remove it from the web completely but you can make it incredibly hard for anyone in the US to access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405064</id>
	<title>Security procedures manual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Secret information is only secret if it stays that way.  Once the cat is out of the bag there is no putting it back as (un)fortunate as it may be for the secret holders there is no working around reality.</p><p>All shutting down crytome/wikileaks will do is prevent millions of disinterested but curious folks from downloading the same information bad actors already have obtained through other means.  Its a political formulation not a reality based concideration which in fact improves anyones (Excluding job security of the fuckups who are cought red-handed of course) security.</p><p>The TSA document was distributed to how many people?  How much of it is then distributed to "GED honor students"?  To even suggest terrorists are helped by the release of such material is to admit the material is flawed in the first instance.  It only helps the bad guys when the maximum amount of light does not shine brightly on the weakest link of any security protocol.  Security by obscurity is as foolish and unworkable in the real world as it is in the computer world.</p><p>In terms of the pager leaks...WTF do you expect broadcasting one-way messages out in the clear?  Again if you have something important to say for crying out loud don't use a one-way pager system as your pager might not receive the signal and you can count on your advasaries getting the message loud and clear.</p><p>More importantly than any of that is the effect on the media which relies on leaks for critical reporting.  Any country without a truely free press is doomed to drown in incompetence, corruption and censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Secret information is only secret if it stays that way .
Once the cat is out of the bag there is no putting it back as ( un ) fortunate as it may be for the secret holders there is no working around reality.All shutting down crytome/wikileaks will do is prevent millions of disinterested but curious folks from downloading the same information bad actors already have obtained through other means .
Its a political formulation not a reality based concideration which in fact improves anyones ( Excluding job security of the fuckups who are cought red-handed of course ) security.The TSA document was distributed to how many people ?
How much of it is then distributed to " GED honor students " ?
To even suggest terrorists are helped by the release of such material is to admit the material is flawed in the first instance .
It only helps the bad guys when the maximum amount of light does not shine brightly on the weakest link of any security protocol .
Security by obscurity is as foolish and unworkable in the real world as it is in the computer world.In terms of the pager leaks...WTF do you expect broadcasting one-way messages out in the clear ?
Again if you have something important to say for crying out loud do n't use a one-way pager system as your pager might not receive the signal and you can count on your advasaries getting the message loud and clear.More importantly than any of that is the effect on the media which relies on leaks for critical reporting .
Any country without a truely free press is doomed to drown in incompetence , corruption and censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secret information is only secret if it stays that way.
Once the cat is out of the bag there is no putting it back as (un)fortunate as it may be for the secret holders there is no working around reality.All shutting down crytome/wikileaks will do is prevent millions of disinterested but curious folks from downloading the same information bad actors already have obtained through other means.
Its a political formulation not a reality based concideration which in fact improves anyones (Excluding job security of the fuckups who are cought red-handed of course) security.The TSA document was distributed to how many people?
How much of it is then distributed to "GED honor students"?
To even suggest terrorists are helped by the release of such material is to admit the material is flawed in the first instance.
It only helps the bad guys when the maximum amount of light does not shine brightly on the weakest link of any security protocol.
Security by obscurity is as foolish and unworkable in the real world as it is in the computer world.In terms of the pager leaks...WTF do you expect broadcasting one-way messages out in the clear?
Again if you have something important to say for crying out loud don't use a one-way pager system as your pager might not receive the signal and you can count on your advasaries getting the message loud and clear.More importantly than any of that is the effect on the media which relies on leaks for critical reporting.
Any country without a truely free press is doomed to drown in incompetence, corruption and censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30408350</id>
	<title>Re:Very Dangerous</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1260533940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, no it doesn't.  Some documents aren't created for everyone to see.  If they were trying to ban all digital versions of Twilight...that would be a digital book burning since it was meant for public consumption.  And I don't think that would be very dangerous...but that's just my biased opinion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no it does n't .
Some documents are n't created for everyone to see .
If they were trying to ban all digital versions of Twilight...that would be a digital book burning since it was meant for public consumption .
And I do n't think that would be very dangerous...but that 's just my biased opinion ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no it doesn't.
Some documents aren't created for everyone to see.
If they were trying to ban all digital versions of Twilight...that would be a digital book burning since it was meant for public consumption.
And I don't think that would be very dangerous...but that's just my biased opinion ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402118</id>
	<title>Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260548700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corrupt Republicans, like usual, are trying to prevent their constituents from having the actual information about the farce of security that is the TSA. Corrupt republicans feel that security through stupidity is the best way for the country, they fully support the destruction of libertarian ideals and those who support freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corrupt Republicans , like usual , are trying to prevent their constituents from having the actual information about the farce of security that is the TSA .
Corrupt republicans feel that security through stupidity is the best way for the country , they fully support the destruction of libertarian ideals and those who support freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corrupt Republicans, like usual, are trying to prevent their constituents from having the actual information about the farce of security that is the TSA.
Corrupt republicans feel that security through stupidity is the best way for the country, they fully support the destruction of libertarian ideals and those who support freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</id>
	<title>NO!!</title>
	<author>splatacaster</author>
	<datestamp>1260548580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a dangerous road to go down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a dangerous road to go down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a dangerous road to go down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Raisey-raison</author>
	<datestamp>1260550860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything.  Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control?  Do they not remember the values of their party?</p><p>Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?</p></div><p>Republicans only care about less government when that means lower taxes and the government not providing services to it's citizens - especially the poor ones. But when it comes to a police state, defense spending and going to war they don't give a crap about liberty.</p><p>There really is no option (with respect to a viable political party) for someone who believes in liberty in all areas. The democrats want to take away economic liberty.</p><p>And both major parties don't seem to have common sense, eg we cant run deficits year after year since 2001 without severe consequences, IP is out of control and the gini coefienient is way too high. And except for a few on the hard left, there seems to be serious brain damage in the American political system when the majority of people think that you can have an effective health care system delivered by the free market. The free market doesn't work for health care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who could n't regulate anything .
Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control ?
Do they not remember the values of their party ? Maybe they only want a powerful government when it 's convenient for them ? Republicans only care about less government when that means lower taxes and the government not providing services to it 's citizens - especially the poor ones .
But when it comes to a police state , defense spending and going to war they do n't give a crap about liberty.There really is no option ( with respect to a viable political party ) for someone who believes in liberty in all areas .
The democrats want to take away economic liberty.And both major parties do n't seem to have common sense , eg we cant run deficits year after year since 2001 without severe consequences , IP is out of control and the gini coefienient is way too high .
And except for a few on the hard left , there seems to be serious brain damage in the American political system when the majority of people think that you can have an effective health care system delivered by the free market .
The free market does n't work for health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything.
Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control?
Do they not remember the values of their party?Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?Republicans only care about less government when that means lower taxes and the government not providing services to it's citizens - especially the poor ones.
But when it comes to a police state, defense spending and going to war they don't give a crap about liberty.There really is no option (with respect to a viable political party) for someone who believes in liberty in all areas.
The democrats want to take away economic liberty.And both major parties don't seem to have common sense, eg we cant run deficits year after year since 2001 without severe consequences, IP is out of control and the gini coefienient is way too high.
And except for a few on the hard left, there seems to be serious brain damage in the American political system when the majority of people think that you can have an effective health care system delivered by the free market.
The free market doesn't work for health care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405766</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>johnny cashed</author>
	<datestamp>1260563520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a relatively free market works so well for food, water, shelter, clothing, and heat (all basic human needs that are a much higher priority to one's continued existence) but fails for healthcare.</i>
<br>
<br>

one word: Insurance.
<br> <br>
Insurance doesn't cover your food, clothing, water, heat, shelter (though you can get insurance for shelter).  Insurance is designed for rare events, like your shelter burning down, not for routine medical/health needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a relatively free market works so well for food , water , shelter , clothing , and heat ( all basic human needs that are a much higher priority to one 's continued existence ) but fails for healthcare .
one word : Insurance .
Insurance does n't cover your food , clothing , water , heat , shelter ( though you can get insurance for shelter ) .
Insurance is designed for rare events , like your shelter burning down , not for routine medical/health needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a relatively free market works so well for food, water, shelter, clothing, and heat (all basic human needs that are a much higher priority to one's continued existence) but fails for healthcare.
one word: Insurance.
Insurance doesn't cover your food, clothing, water, heat, shelter (though you can get insurance for shelter).
Insurance is designed for rare events, like your shelter burning down, not for routine medical/health needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403812</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>rhizome</author>
	<datestamp>1260555240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers. </i></p><p>Oh, you mean like when Bad Country uses their national firewall to block access to websites deemed unsavory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers .
Oh , you mean like when Bad Country uses their national firewall to block access to websites deemed unsavory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers.
Oh, you mean like when Bad Country uses their national firewall to block access to websites deemed unsavory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403332</id>
	<title>Re:More important question is who TSA fired for th</title>
	<author>Petaris</author>
	<datestamp>1260553680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in IT as do many here.  There are a number of reasons this could have happened that have nothing to do with incompetence of the IT department.  As for training it can be difficult to find time and or money to train employees, and many don't pay attention anyway.  I would hesitate to suggest firing a bunch of people without knowing the details first.  If no one gave that person proper training then it really isn't their fault.  If they were trained and ignored the training then it is.  Was that person even in the IT dept?  Maybe they were just a normal office worker and they have a simple way to upload requested documents (CMS type of system).  Maybe the administration didn't want to spend the money on training or didn't have money for training.  I'm not saying that no one should be held responsible, I'm just saying that you need to know the whole story before saying who should be fired, if anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in IT as do many here .
There are a number of reasons this could have happened that have nothing to do with incompetence of the IT department .
As for training it can be difficult to find time and or money to train employees , and many do n't pay attention anyway .
I would hesitate to suggest firing a bunch of people without knowing the details first .
If no one gave that person proper training then it really is n't their fault .
If they were trained and ignored the training then it is .
Was that person even in the IT dept ?
Maybe they were just a normal office worker and they have a simple way to upload requested documents ( CMS type of system ) .
Maybe the administration did n't want to spend the money on training or did n't have money for training .
I 'm not saying that no one should be held responsible , I 'm just saying that you need to know the whole story before saying who should be fired , if anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in IT as do many here.
There are a number of reasons this could have happened that have nothing to do with incompetence of the IT department.
As for training it can be difficult to find time and or money to train employees, and many don't pay attention anyway.
I would hesitate to suggest firing a bunch of people without knowing the details first.
If no one gave that person proper training then it really isn't their fault.
If they were trained and ignored the training then it is.
Was that person even in the IT dept?
Maybe they were just a normal office worker and they have a simple way to upload requested documents (CMS type of system).
Maybe the administration didn't want to spend the money on training or didn't have money for training.
I'm not saying that no one should be held responsible, I'm just saying that you need to know the whole story before saying who should be fired, if anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30410216</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>on the 8ball</author>
	<datestamp>1260546720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are 2 agencies named, so the [sic] is correct.<br>e.g. How has DHS and TSA addressed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." is the same as "How has they addressed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...", both are wrong. S/b "How HAVE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>- the grammar nazi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are 2 agencies named , so the [ sic ] is correct.e.g .
How has DHS and TSA addressed ... " is the same as " How has they addressed ... " , both are wrong .
S/b " How HAVE ... " - the grammar nazi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are 2 agencies named, so the [sic] is correct.e.g.
How has DHS and TSA addressed ..." is the same as "How has they addressed ...", both are wrong.
S/b "How HAVE ..."- the grammar nazi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402592</id>
	<title>What about news orgs?</title>
	<author>joeszilagyi</author>
	<datestamp>1260550860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they say anything about going after news agencies that reposted the documents?

Or is that a battle they don't want to fight? I don't get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they say anything about going after news agencies that reposted the documents ?
Or is that a battle they do n't want to fight ?
I do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they say anything about going after news agencies that reposted the documents?
Or is that a battle they don't want to fight?
I don't get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403602</id>
	<title>Re:Falls under freedom of press</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1260554520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my country buying of stolen goods or information is a criminal offence, at least the members of press that got information in their hands have to prove they did not know that the info or goods were stolen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my country buying of stolen goods or information is a criminal offence , at least the members of press that got information in their hands have to prove they did not know that the info or goods were stolen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my country buying of stolen goods or information is a criminal offence, at least the members of press that got information in their hands have to prove they did not know that the info or goods were stolen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402292</id>
	<title>Obligatory H2G2</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1260549420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a jerk, Dent.  FWIW, there is a difference between a reputable organization publishing these, where the address, employees, and funders are all known, and some anonymous group.  If you want media shield protections, announce yourself, and retain counsel to ensure it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a jerk , Dent .
FWIW , there is a difference between a reputable organization publishing these , where the address , employees , and funders are all known , and some anonymous group .
If you want media shield protections , announce yourself , and retain counsel to ensure it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a jerk, Dent.
FWIW, there is a difference between a reputable organization publishing these, where the address, employees, and funders are all known, and some anonymous group.
If you want media shield protections, announce yourself, and retain counsel to ensure it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404246</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1260556860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No that wouldn't cause the whack a mole effect or anything.  Or a huge shitstorm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No that would n't cause the whack a mole effect or anything .
Or a huge shitstorm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No that wouldn't cause the whack a mole effect or anything.
Or a huge shitstorm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238</id>
	<title>I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1260549180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?</p></div><p>

Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States. So, none.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what legal action , if any , can be taken to compel its removal ?
Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States .
So , none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?
Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States.
So, none.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402800</id>
	<title>A wikileaks not covered by US laws(?):</title>
	<author>kandresen</author>
	<datestamp>1260551760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By having one wikileaks in a place not covered by US laws and another covered by US laws. What is the law for placing subdomains with a separate hosting provider broad by the way? Lets say us.wikileaks.org was hosted in France and www.wikileaks.org was hosted in the USA?</p><p>Another option might be to place a wikileaks on Freenet, and simply place references to the content on the wikileaks website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By having one wikileaks in a place not covered by US laws and another covered by US laws .
What is the law for placing subdomains with a separate hosting provider broad by the way ?
Lets say us.wikileaks.org was hosted in France and www.wikileaks.org was hosted in the USA ? Another option might be to place a wikileaks on Freenet , and simply place references to the content on the wikileaks website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By having one wikileaks in a place not covered by US laws and another covered by US laws.
What is the law for placing subdomains with a separate hosting provider broad by the way?
Lets say us.wikileaks.org was hosted in France and www.wikileaks.org was hosted in the USA?Another option might be to place a wikileaks on Freenet, and simply place references to the content on the wikileaks website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403440</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1260554040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The information was openly requested  - No Charge</p><p>The information was provided by the US Government legally - No Charge</p><p>The information was posted on a website not hosted in the US and is not breaking any local or international laws - No charge</p><p>What can they do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nothing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The information was openly requested - No ChargeThe information was provided by the US Government legally - No ChargeThe information was posted on a website not hosted in the US and is not breaking any local or international laws - No chargeWhat can they do ... nothing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The information was openly requested  - No ChargeThe information was provided by the US Government legally - No ChargeThe information was posted on a website not hosted in the US and is not breaking any local or international laws - No chargeWhat can they do ... nothing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402224</id>
	<title>Exposure is good.</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1260549180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppressing the exposure is not the solution. It just means any future such leaks will be distributed "below the radar". In the interests of national security the leaks should be made as public as possible so that reactions can done to the leaks if required. Ideally the policies should be secure enough that we are still safe with full disclosure. As we all know security through obscurity is not a good solution.</p><p>Better that we know the leak occurred than the leak occurs and we don't know it happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppressing the exposure is not the solution .
It just means any future such leaks will be distributed " below the radar " .
In the interests of national security the leaks should be made as public as possible so that reactions can done to the leaks if required .
Ideally the policies should be secure enough that we are still safe with full disclosure .
As we all know security through obscurity is not a good solution.Better that we know the leak occurred than the leak occurs and we do n't know it happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppressing the exposure is not the solution.
It just means any future such leaks will be distributed "below the radar".
In the interests of national security the leaks should be made as public as possible so that reactions can done to the leaks if required.
Ideally the policies should be secure enough that we are still safe with full disclosure.
As we all know security through obscurity is not a good solution.Better that we know the leak occurred than the leak occurs and we don't know it happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407904</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>NotOverHere</author>
	<datestamp>1260531240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like something a <b>Totalitarian</b> regime would do.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like something a Totalitarian regime would do.There , fixed that for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like something a Totalitarian regime would do.There, fixed that for you
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406092</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Raisey-raison</author>
	<datestamp>1260522120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The price mechanism is a form a rationing. It determines who gets what and how much of it people get. The problem is that you can't just not get health care or get very crappy care. You can live in a studio appartment with a roommate and have just the bare essentials of life and get by on $10.00 an hour. But you can't just get bare essentials of health-care.</p><p>If you get cancer and need chemotherapy and you don't have insurance - you die. Health-care is a necessity that everyone needs quite a bit of. So we need to distribute it in a rather 'equal' manor as opposed to everything else where distributing it unequally doesn't mean people suffer and die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The price mechanism is a form a rationing .
It determines who gets what and how much of it people get .
The problem is that you ca n't just not get health care or get very crappy care .
You can live in a studio appartment with a roommate and have just the bare essentials of life and get by on $ 10.00 an hour .
But you ca n't just get bare essentials of health-care.If you get cancer and need chemotherapy and you do n't have insurance - you die .
Health-care is a necessity that everyone needs quite a bit of .
So we need to distribute it in a rather 'equal ' manor as opposed to everything else where distributing it unequally does n't mean people suffer and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The price mechanism is a form a rationing.
It determines who gets what and how much of it people get.
The problem is that you can't just not get health care or get very crappy care.
You can live in a studio appartment with a roommate and have just the bare essentials of life and get by on $10.00 an hour.
But you can't just get bare essentials of health-care.If you get cancer and need chemotherapy and you don't have insurance - you die.
Health-care is a necessity that everyone needs quite a bit of.
So we need to distribute it in a rather 'equal' manor as opposed to everything else where distributing it unequally doesn't mean people suffer and die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402166</id>
	<title>Headline should read:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260548940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak <i>Sources</i> </b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sources</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sources </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402244</id>
	<title>Falls under freedom of press</title>
	<author>Xeoz</author>
	<datestamp>1260549240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy , no matter how the information got into their hands , even if it was acquired via illegal actions .
So long as the press organization and it 's agents have not done anything illegal to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions.
So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403304</id>
	<title>Re:They posted what was released</title>
	<author>Abstrackt</author>
	<datestamp>1260553500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How are the web sites at fault?  The TSA gave them the information.  If the TSA didn't want it posted they shouldn't have released the information.</p><p>The TSA's lack of technical skills is not a crime on the web sites part?</p></div><p>The "crime" is that they made the TSA look stupid(er).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are the web sites at fault ?
The TSA gave them the information .
If the TSA did n't want it posted they should n't have released the information.The TSA 's lack of technical skills is not a crime on the web sites part ? The " crime " is that they made the TSA look stupid ( er ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are the web sites at fault?
The TSA gave them the information.
If the TSA didn't want it posted they shouldn't have released the information.The TSA's lack of technical skills is not a crime on the web sites part?The "crime" is that they made the TSA look stupid(er).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404428</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>jackal40</author>
	<datestamp>1260557640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are refering to the individuals who leaked those documents, then I agree. To me, this is nothing different than someone leaking to the newspapers or the television stations. Once its out, its out.

If you are refering to the people who host the web sites, then we have a different story. While a web site does not have the protections that journalists do - I believe that in this case they are providing the public the same type of information, and should be protected.

YMMV</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are refering to the individuals who leaked those documents , then I agree .
To me , this is nothing different than someone leaking to the newspapers or the television stations .
Once its out , its out .
If you are refering to the people who host the web sites , then we have a different story .
While a web site does not have the protections that journalists do - I believe that in this case they are providing the public the same type of information , and should be protected .
YMMV</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are refering to the individuals who leaked those documents, then I agree.
To me, this is nothing different than someone leaking to the newspapers or the television stations.
Once its out, its out.
If you are refering to the people who host the web sites, then we have a different story.
While a web site does not have the protections that journalists do - I believe that in this case they are providing the public the same type of information, and should be protected.
YMMV</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402746</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar Appears Correct To Me</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1260551460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he was referring to the use of 'has' with a plural subject (due to there being two agencies involved).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he was referring to the use of 'has ' with a plural subject ( due to there being two agencies involved ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he was referring to the use of 'has' with a plural subject (due to there being two agencies involved).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402732</id>
	<title>Re:Retards in office.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of us feel the people in charge of our country are not the best to be doing so, unfortunately we have nobody to blame but ourselves.  Ultimately WE are not making enough noise.  WE are not putting those actually capable of doing the job.  Additionally, many of those same people vote along party lines, if at all.  How can you expect anything different?</p><p>Interesting question:  Why do we force leaders to step down from a business at 55-60?  I suspect it's because we don't think they're fit to represent the interests of the company.  So why do we take the same people we say can't run a company, and let them run the country?</p><p>Is anyone really surprised that these people don't understand technology, and don't care about the future of the country?  They'll all be dead in 15 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of us feel the people in charge of our country are not the best to be doing so , unfortunately we have nobody to blame but ourselves .
Ultimately WE are not making enough noise .
WE are not putting those actually capable of doing the job .
Additionally , many of those same people vote along party lines , if at all .
How can you expect anything different ? Interesting question : Why do we force leaders to step down from a business at 55-60 ?
I suspect it 's because we do n't think they 're fit to represent the interests of the company .
So why do we take the same people we say ca n't run a company , and let them run the country ? Is anyone really surprised that these people do n't understand technology , and do n't care about the future of the country ?
They 'll all be dead in 15 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of us feel the people in charge of our country are not the best to be doing so, unfortunately we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Ultimately WE are not making enough noise.
WE are not putting those actually capable of doing the job.
Additionally, many of those same people vote along party lines, if at all.
How can you expect anything different?Interesting question:  Why do we force leaders to step down from a business at 55-60?
I suspect it's because we don't think they're fit to represent the interests of the company.
So why do we take the same people we say can't run a company, and let them run the country?Is anyone really surprised that these people don't understand technology, and don't care about the future of the country?
They'll all be dead in 15 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402380</id>
	<title>The usual...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260549780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem doesn't get fixed, instead the whistle-blower gets to be treated as a criminal.</p><p>WOW! Pass the message: the U.S. isn't intent on fixing problems, instead they're intent on suppressing free speech!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem does n't get fixed , instead the whistle-blower gets to be treated as a criminal.WOW !
Pass the message : the U.S. is n't intent on fixing problems , instead they 're intent on suppressing free speech !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem doesn't get fixed, instead the whistle-blower gets to be treated as a criminal.WOW!
Pass the message: the U.S. isn't intent on fixing problems, instead they're intent on suppressing free speech!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404782</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The concerned representatives are republicans. No wonder they have some difficulty adjusting to a democracy..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The concerned representatives are republicans .
No wonder they have some difficulty adjusting to a democracy.. ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concerned representatives are republicans.
No wonder they have some difficulty adjusting to a democracy.. ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403126</id>
	<title>Please, your help is needed!</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1260552840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, please mail to your representatives a copy of the United States Constitution.</p><p>They clearly need one to refer to when this legislation ceoms before them for consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , please mail to your representatives a copy of the United States Constitution.They clearly need one to refer to when this legislation ceoms before them for consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, please mail to your representatives a copy of the United States Constitution.They clearly need one to refer to when this legislation ceoms before them for consideration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403950</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1260555900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism" title="wikipedia.org">hijacking</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its called hijacking [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its called hijacking [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406352</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260523440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd bet that out of all its officers, agents, and all of that there are a surprising number that actually ARE reading slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd bet that out of all its officers , agents , and all of that there are a surprising number that actually ARE reading slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd bet that out of all its officers, agents, and all of that there are a surprising number that actually ARE reading slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402390</id>
	<title>More important question is who TSA fired for this</title>
	<author>Tangential</author>
	<datestamp>1260549840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that the Congress ought to be more concerned about the levels of security and training maintained by the TSA than with sites that replicate publicly available information.

Sounds to me that in addition to firing the redactor of the document for incompetence, several heads should roll in their IT, security and training organizations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that the Congress ought to be more concerned about the levels of security and training maintained by the TSA than with sites that replicate publicly available information .
Sounds to me that in addition to firing the redactor of the document for incompetence , several heads should roll in their IT , security and training organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that the Congress ought to be more concerned about the levels of security and training maintained by the TSA than with sites that replicate publicly available information.
Sounds to me that in addition to firing the redactor of the document for incompetence, several heads should roll in their IT, security and training organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405232</id>
	<title>Will they never learn?</title>
	<author>Orgasmatron</author>
	<datestamp>1260561000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you Barbera Streisand!  I was going to let this one go, but now I'm going to download and keep a copy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you Barbera Streisand !
I was going to let this one go , but now I 'm going to download and keep a copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you Barbera Streisand!
I was going to let this one go, but now I'm going to download and keep a copy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403974</id>
	<title>Microsoft did it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260555960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Win2k source code. Let me know if you can find any (comments don't count).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Win2k source code .
Let me know if you can find any ( comments do n't count ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Win2k source code.
Let me know if you can find any (comments don't count).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104</id>
	<title>Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260548640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's kinda hard to put back, if there are criminal charges to be involved, it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kinda hard to put back , if there are criminal charges to be involved , it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kinda hard to put back, if there are criminal charges to be involved, it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402502</id>
	<title>Re:Retards in office.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country? Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet."</p><p>We have plenty of retards relentlessly electing the "retards" who run the country.</p><p>We really need to admit that most of the American public are, to be polite, stupid, superstitious, willfully ignorant, and vicious.<br>Smart, clueful people will always be a tiny, often beseiged, minority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country ?
Like , seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet .
" We have plenty of retards relentlessly electing the " retards " who run the country.We really need to admit that most of the American public are , to be polite , stupid , superstitious , willfully ignorant , and vicious.Smart , clueful people will always be a tiny , often beseiged , minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country?
Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet.
"We have plenty of retards relentlessly electing the "retards" who run the country.We really need to admit that most of the American public are, to be polite, stupid, superstitious, willfully ignorant, and vicious.Smart, clueful people will always be a tiny, often beseiged, minority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404696</id>
	<title>Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1260558840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about "Republicans" or "Democrats;" if you haven't figured out that 95\% of both of these parties are basically the same when it comes t things like this (and forms of insitutionalized corruption)...then...well, I guess you are like many in America.</p><p>This left vs right paradigm is very useful to those who do nothing but benefit while a good portion of the country fight about whatever the latest meaningless political outrage is, or how many holes Tiger Woods has 'sunk' off of the golf course this year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about " Republicans " or " Democrats ; " if you have n't figured out that 95 \ % of both of these parties are basically the same when it comes t things like this ( and forms of insitutionalized corruption ) ...then...well , I guess you are like many in America.This left vs right paradigm is very useful to those who do nothing but benefit while a good portion of the country fight about whatever the latest meaningless political outrage is , or how many holes Tiger Woods has 'sunk ' off of the golf course this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about "Republicans" or "Democrats;" if you haven't figured out that 95\% of both of these parties are basically the same when it comes t things like this (and forms of insitutionalized corruption)...then...well, I guess you are like many in America.This left vs right paradigm is very useful to those who do nothing but benefit while a good portion of the country fight about whatever the latest meaningless political outrage is, or how many holes Tiger Woods has 'sunk' off of the golf course this year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402260</id>
	<title>They posted what was released</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1260549300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How are the web sites at fault?  The TSA gave them the information.  If the TSA didn't want it posted they shouldn't have released the information.</p><p>The TSA's lack of technical skills is not a crime on the web sites part?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How are the web sites at fault ?
The TSA gave them the information .
If the TSA did n't want it posted they should n't have released the information.The TSA 's lack of technical skills is not a crime on the web sites part ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are the web sites at fault?
The TSA gave them the information.
If the TSA didn't want it posted they shouldn't have released the information.The TSA's lack of technical skills is not a crime on the web sites part?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402806</id>
	<title>Very Dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This equates to Digital Book Burning. This is an essential liberty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This equates to Digital Book Burning .
This is an essential liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This equates to Digital Book Burning.
This is an essential liberty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402216</id>
	<title>Nice to know they're on our side</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1260549120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never known a politician  to be thick or outdated, so I'm sure these guys are just concerned for our rights. They must be intentionally invoking the Streisand effect upon realizing how important this information is to have spread further across the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never known a politician to be thick or outdated , so I 'm sure these guys are just concerned for our rights .
They must be intentionally invoking the Streisand effect upon realizing how important this information is to have spread further across the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never known a politician  to be thick or outdated, so I'm sure these guys are just concerned for our rights.
They must be intentionally invoking the Streisand effect upon realizing how important this information is to have spread further across the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403448</id>
	<title>Congratulations!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations to Wikileaks! You know you're doing something right when the authorities are scared!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations to Wikileaks !
You know you 're doing something right when the authorities are scared !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations to Wikileaks!
You know you're doing something right when the authorities are scared!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403832</id>
	<title>Surely they're right to ask</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1260555360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curiously nobody has suggested that they're acting correctly.</p><p>"Secret" information has been leaked. Sources on the internet are hosting that leaked information. It's perfectly sensible and legitimate to ask how that information can be suppressed, and whether legal action is (or should be made) possible against those that disseminate it.</p><p>The answer is obviously that it'll be extremely difficult (and for certain types of information, impossible), but I would expect people in their position to at least ask the question.</p><p>Whether the information should be suppressed, and the extent and severity of the actions appropriate to suppressing it are irrelevant to the main point. Should they implement new laws and start arresting and extraditing foreign nationals, seizing foreign servers and invading/bombing foreign countries (as has already happened) then quite rightly they should be criticised, but merely asking what can be done is appropriate and proportionate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curiously nobody has suggested that they 're acting correctly .
" Secret " information has been leaked .
Sources on the internet are hosting that leaked information .
It 's perfectly sensible and legitimate to ask how that information can be suppressed , and whether legal action is ( or should be made ) possible against those that disseminate it.The answer is obviously that it 'll be extremely difficult ( and for certain types of information , impossible ) , but I would expect people in their position to at least ask the question.Whether the information should be suppressed , and the extent and severity of the actions appropriate to suppressing it are irrelevant to the main point .
Should they implement new laws and start arresting and extraditing foreign nationals , seizing foreign servers and invading/bombing foreign countries ( as has already happened ) then quite rightly they should be criticised , but merely asking what can be done is appropriate and proportionate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curiously nobody has suggested that they're acting correctly.
"Secret" information has been leaked.
Sources on the internet are hosting that leaked information.
It's perfectly sensible and legitimate to ask how that information can be suppressed, and whether legal action is (or should be made) possible against those that disseminate it.The answer is obviously that it'll be extremely difficult (and for certain types of information, impossible), but I would expect people in their position to at least ask the question.Whether the information should be suppressed, and the extent and severity of the actions appropriate to suppressing it are irrelevant to the main point.
Should they implement new laws and start arresting and extraditing foreign nationals, seizing foreign servers and invading/bombing foreign countries (as has already happened) then quite rightly they should be criticised, but merely asking what can be done is appropriate and proportionate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407796</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>AioKits</author>
	<datestamp>1260530700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!"?</p></div><p>NAMBLA or NAFTA?  While containing a few of the same letters, I feel the goals of these organizations are drastically different...  I could be wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying " oh yeah , I 'll vote with them !
" ? NAMBLA or NAFTA ?
While containing a few of the same letters , I feel the goals of these organizations are drastically different... I could be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!
"?NAMBLA or NAFTA?
While containing a few of the same letters, I feel the goals of these organizations are drastically different...  I could be wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402388</id>
	<title>Re:I would think the first amendment would cover t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260549840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government works are never copyrighted, but the government has some limited ability to declare information to be so critical to national security that it must be kept secret for our own safety.  For example, if you happen to find a nuclear weapon design document, with detail technical specifications, the government can bar you from publishing it.<br> <br>

It used to be that this law only applied to nuclear secrets and information related to the location of nuclear subs (and so forth), but these days terrorism is an excuse to keep all sorts of other things secret.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government works are never copyrighted , but the government has some limited ability to declare information to be so critical to national security that it must be kept secret for our own safety .
For example , if you happen to find a nuclear weapon design document , with detail technical specifications , the government can bar you from publishing it .
It used to be that this law only applied to nuclear secrets and information related to the location of nuclear subs ( and so forth ) , but these days terrorism is an excuse to keep all sorts of other things secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government works are never copyrighted, but the government has some limited ability to declare information to be so critical to national security that it must be kept secret for our own safety.
For example, if you happen to find a nuclear weapon design document, with detail technical specifications, the government can bar you from publishing it.
It used to be that this law only applied to nuclear secrets and information related to the location of nuclear subs (and so forth), but these days terrorism is an excuse to keep all sorts of other things secret.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403444</id>
	<title>Oh yeah, this'll work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous Meoward</author>
	<datestamp>1260554040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The net effect of this affair will be to burnish the reputations of these particular Congresscritters in their districts as "patriots". (Does that word have any meaning anymore in this country?) Not much else.

</p><p>It's 100\% grandstanding, and they know it. And anyone who observes US politics should know it.

</p><p>Someone will catch hell for the leak, if they haven't already. But otherwise, this will have the consequences of most other bullshit: None.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The net effect of this affair will be to burnish the reputations of these particular Congresscritters in their districts as " patriots " .
( Does that word have any meaning anymore in this country ?
) Not much else .
It 's 100 \ % grandstanding , and they know it .
And anyone who observes US politics should know it .
Someone will catch hell for the leak , if they have n't already .
But otherwise , this will have the consequences of most other bullshit : None .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The net effect of this affair will be to burnish the reputations of these particular Congresscritters in their districts as "patriots".
(Does that word have any meaning anymore in this country?
) Not much else.
It's 100\% grandstanding, and they know it.
And anyone who observes US politics should know it.
Someone will catch hell for the leak, if they haven't already.
But otherwise, this will have the consequences of most other bullshit: None.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405760</id>
	<title>and for everything else ...</title>
	<author>Krishnoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260563520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What can they do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nothing</p></div><p>... priceless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What can they do ... nothing... priceless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can they do ... nothing... priceless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402770</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>minderaser</author>
	<datestamp>1260551580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything.  Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control?  Do they not remember the values of their party?</p><p>Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?</p></div><p>Did you just figure this out?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who could n't regulate anything .
Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control ?
Do they not remember the values of their party ? Maybe they only want a powerful government when it 's convenient for them ? Did you just figure this out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything.
Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control?
Do they not remember the values of their party?Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?Did you just figure this out?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404142</id>
	<title>Re:I would think the first amendment would cover t</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1260556560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that the government can copyright documents.  They can declare them Top Secret, Classified or give them some other security designation that means general dissemination of the document could land you in hot water.  However, in this case, the TSA themselves posted the document.  They just drew some black boxes over the redacted parts, not realizing that PDFs don't care about black boxes.  So it isn't WikiLeaks' fault that the information is out there.  They didn't hack into the TSA's systems and make this document public.  The TSA made the document public.  Now the genie is out of the bottle and you can't just cram it back in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that the government can copyright documents .
They can declare them Top Secret , Classified or give them some other security designation that means general dissemination of the document could land you in hot water .
However , in this case , the TSA themselves posted the document .
They just drew some black boxes over the redacted parts , not realizing that PDFs do n't care about black boxes .
So it is n't WikiLeaks ' fault that the information is out there .
They did n't hack into the TSA 's systems and make this document public .
The TSA made the document public .
Now the genie is out of the bottle and you ca n't just cram it back in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that the government can copyright documents.
They can declare them Top Secret, Classified or give them some other security designation that means general dissemination of the document could land you in hot water.
However, in this case, the TSA themselves posted the document.
They just drew some black boxes over the redacted parts, not realizing that PDFs don't care about black boxes.
So it isn't WikiLeaks' fault that the information is out there.
They didn't hack into the TSA's systems and make this document public.
The TSA made the document public.
Now the genie is out of the bottle and you can't just cram it back in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402738</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar Appears Correct To Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The subject is "Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration", i.e. plural, so "have" should have been used instead of "had". (English isn't my native language, so don't take my word for it, but the document you referred to agrees: "The auxiliary verb--has or have--changes to agree with its subject".) HTH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The subject is " Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration " , i.e .
plural , so " have " should have been used instead of " had " .
( English is n't my native language , so do n't take my word for it , but the document you referred to agrees : " The auxiliary verb--has or have--changes to agree with its subject " .
) HTH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subject is "Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration", i.e.
plural, so "have" should have been used instead of "had".
(English isn't my native language, so don't take my word for it, but the document you referred to agrees: "The auxiliary verb--has or have--changes to agree with its subject".
) HTH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402462</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States. So, none.</p></div><p>Surgical air strike?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States .
So , none.Surgical air strike ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States.
So, none.Surgical air strike?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404152</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1260556620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.</p><p>I'd even go so far as to say that such a boneheaded move by the TSA should constitute willful declassification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed.I 'd even go so far as to say that such a boneheaded move by the TSA should constitute willful declassification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.I'd even go so far as to say that such a boneheaded move by the TSA should constitute willful declassification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402894</id>
	<title>Re:Sic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the subject is so long, it is easy to lose track of the fact that it is plural:  "the Department of Homeland Security" and "the Transportation Security Administration".  The auxiliary verb should be "have", not "has".  If, for example, you replace the subject with something simpler but grammatically interchangeable, it becomes easier to see, thus:</p><p>How has Bob and Mike addressed this?<br>How have Bob and Mike addressed this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the subject is so long , it is easy to lose track of the fact that it is plural : " the Department of Homeland Security " and " the Transportation Security Administration " .
The auxiliary verb should be " have " , not " has " .
If , for example , you replace the subject with something simpler but grammatically interchangeable , it becomes easier to see , thus : How has Bob and Mike addressed this ? How have Bob and Mike addressed this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the subject is so long, it is easy to lose track of the fact that it is plural:  "the Department of Homeland Security" and "the Transportation Security Administration".
The auxiliary verb should be "have", not "has".
If, for example, you replace the subject with something simpler but grammatically interchangeable, it becomes easier to see, thus:How has Bob and Mike addressed this?How have Bob and Mike addressed this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402810</id>
	<title>Re:Sic?</title>
	<author>macaddict</author>
	<datestamp>1260551820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sentence is referring to two separate agencies: DHS and TSA. Rewrite the sentence to "How has they addressed the repeated posting..." vs. "How have they addressed the repeated posting...", and you'll see the error.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sentence is referring to two separate agencies : DHS and TSA .
Rewrite the sentence to " How has they addressed the repeated posting... " vs. " How have they addressed the repeated posting... " , and you 'll see the error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sentence is referring to two separate agencies: DHS and TSA.
Rewrite the sentence to "How has they addressed the repeated posting..." vs. "How have they addressed the repeated posting...", and you'll see the error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404016</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>MaerD</author>
	<datestamp>1260556080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals.</p>  </div><p>I get the feeling you may have misinterpreted who I meant should be jailed. I meant the people who did not properly redact said document and posted it online. Regardless of how minor a document this is, the people being trusted with classified information that may affect "national security" should be at the very least fired with all clearances revoked when they screw up. <br> What if this had instead of just screen procedures had included a schedule of which flights get air marshals? (Even if out of date, could be used to figure out which are more likely to have them in the future). <br>
<br>
And yes, the TSA in general is so much uselessness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who exposed this are heroes , not criminals .
I get the feeling you may have misinterpreted who I meant should be jailed .
I meant the people who did not properly redact said document and posted it online .
Regardless of how minor a document this is , the people being trusted with classified information that may affect " national security " should be at the very least fired with all clearances revoked when they screw up .
What if this had instead of just screen procedures had included a schedule of which flights get air marshals ?
( Even if out of date , could be used to figure out which are more likely to have them in the future ) .
And yes , the TSA in general is so much uselessness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals.
I get the feeling you may have misinterpreted who I meant should be jailed.
I meant the people who did not properly redact said document and posted it online.
Regardless of how minor a document this is, the people being trusted with classified information that may affect "national security" should be at the very least fired with all clearances revoked when they screw up.
What if this had instead of just screen procedures had included a schedule of which flights get air marshals?
(Even if out of date, could be used to figure out which are more likely to have them in the future).
And yes, the TSA in general is so much uselessness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403026</id>
	<title>Screw TSA</title>
	<author>DustoneGT</author>
	<datestamp>1260552480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will not fly in a commercial flight until TSA is dismantled. The 9/11 attacks did not warrant federal intrusion into air security. You may disagree, but that's fine. I will continue to vote with my dollars as I see fit. I'd rather drive several days than go through airport security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will not fly in a commercial flight until TSA is dismantled .
The 9/11 attacks did not warrant federal intrusion into air security .
You may disagree , but that 's fine .
I will continue to vote with my dollars as I see fit .
I 'd rather drive several days than go through airport security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will not fly in a commercial flight until TSA is dismantled.
The 9/11 attacks did not warrant federal intrusion into air security.
You may disagree, but that's fine.
I will continue to vote with my dollars as I see fit.
I'd rather drive several days than go through airport security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405236</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1260561060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly the same sentiment here. You and what jurisdiction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly the same sentiment here .
You and what jurisdiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly the same sentiment here.
You and what jurisdiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405650</id>
	<title>Source???</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1260563040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just read through all TSA security manuals and don't find anything about <em>this road</em> being dangerous. Can you post your source of proof to Wikileak?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read through all TSA security manuals and do n't find anything about this road being dangerous .
Can you post your source of proof to Wikileak ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read through all TSA security manuals and don't find anything about this road being dangerous.
Can you post your source of proof to Wikileak?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404670</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>quickgold192</author>
	<datestamp>1260558780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the actual letter? (You and I both know the summery is supposed to be sensational, not accurate.) They had 7 questions they wanted answered, and one of those was how to get the sensative documents off the interwebs, if that's even possible. The answer will most likely come back "not possible." The other 6 questions were things like "why were the documents up on the TSA's website in the first place?" "are there other documents that can be compromised the same way?" "What policies are there to deal with security breaches like this, and what can we do to keep our stuff more secure?"</p><p>I was fooled by the summery too and I was about to write Bilirikis a little letter from a citizen, but then I read the actual letter that was written, and it's pretty reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the actual letter ?
( You and I both know the summery is supposed to be sensational , not accurate .
) They had 7 questions they wanted answered , and one of those was how to get the sensative documents off the interwebs , if that 's even possible .
The answer will most likely come back " not possible .
" The other 6 questions were things like " why were the documents up on the TSA 's website in the first place ?
" " are there other documents that can be compromised the same way ?
" " What policies are there to deal with security breaches like this , and what can we do to keep our stuff more secure ?
" I was fooled by the summery too and I was about to write Bilirikis a little letter from a citizen , but then I read the actual letter that was written , and it 's pretty reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the actual letter?
(You and I both know the summery is supposed to be sensational, not accurate.
) They had 7 questions they wanted answered, and one of those was how to get the sensative documents off the interwebs, if that's even possible.
The answer will most likely come back "not possible.
" The other 6 questions were things like "why were the documents up on the TSA's website in the first place?
" "are there other documents that can be compromised the same way?
" "What policies are there to deal with security breaches like this, and what can we do to keep our stuff more secure?
"I was fooled by the summery too and I was about to write Bilirikis a little letter from a citizen, but then I read the actual letter that was written, and it's pretty reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402160</id>
	<title>I'll let someone else speak for me...</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1260548880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The real meaning of enlightenment is to gaze with undimmed eyes on all darkness." ~ Nikos Kazantzaki</p><p>Of course, this is not what the people responsible for it wish to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The real meaning of enlightenment is to gaze with undimmed eyes on all darkness .
" ~ Nikos KazantzakiOf course , this is not what the people responsible for it wish to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The real meaning of enlightenment is to gaze with undimmed eyes on all darkness.
" ~ Nikos KazantzakiOf course, this is not what the people responsible for it wish to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402944</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1260552300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we should bomb the fuck out of Switzerland.  That will show them how right we are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we should bomb the fuck out of Switzerland .
That will show them how right we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we should bomb the fuck out of Switzerland.
That will show them how right we are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1260552240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.</p></div><p>A government agency responsible for securing billions of dollars in assets and millions of lives yearly now knows the exact scope and nature of a serious breach of security that otherwise wouldn't have been noticed and could have been exploited by people who are a genuine threat to national security, as opposed to a bunch of average americans who get to feel special for about five minutes. Clearly, jailing the people who exposed this is the best route, as opposed to using a little-known fund that the DHS setup to reward private citizens who contribute to anti-terrorism objectives.</p><p><b>The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals.</b> They've exposed a major security vulnerability before anyone could be hurt. Unfortunately, the reputation the TSA and DHS has when private citizens come forward to report problems with their administration of policy, or the policies themselves, is atrocious. <b>They only option they had was a wide and public distribution</b> -- if it could have been contained, they'd vanish right along with the problem. Moving forward the best thing to do is;</p><p>1. Establish guidelines for reporting problems with administration of their policy<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; (in the private sector, we euphemistically refer to these as "training opportunities").<br>2. Establish guidelines for reporting problems with operational security.<br>3. Modify existing damage control procedures to focus more on problem resolution than image protection.<br>4. ACCEPTING THAT SECURITY BREACHES WILL OCCUR, and have a reporting procedure and <i>clear</i> chain of command<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (thus far, they've shown a remarkable lack of understanding of this key concept)<br>5. Stop over-reacting to perceived security breaches -- it desensitizes people and worsens response time should a truly serious situation occur.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Call it the "I cried wolf too many times" story. Stories about the TSA used to make front page... now they're barely slow news day material.</p><p>The overarching objective here is to restore faith in the institution -- because the TSA has become the laughing stock of the media, and the flying public groans at the mention of it. Remember only a few years ago when the TSA was created how people said they'd <i>willingly and happily</i> stand in line for an hour and a half to get through the checkpoint, because they felt safer? Public opinion has dropped <i>considerably</i> since then -- now they're afraid they'll get the greased glove treatment if they so much as look at the equipment. When a flight attendant flips out over someone's request to have orange juice and then receives an official notice that they could be thrown in jail, charged with felonies, and be added to the no-fly list... There is a serious lack of understanding about both what security means, and the public's perception of it. And it's nobody's fault but the TSA's for allowing this to happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.A government agency responsible for securing billions of dollars in assets and millions of lives yearly now knows the exact scope and nature of a serious breach of security that otherwise would n't have been noticed and could have been exploited by people who are a genuine threat to national security , as opposed to a bunch of average americans who get to feel special for about five minutes .
Clearly , jailing the people who exposed this is the best route , as opposed to using a little-known fund that the DHS setup to reward private citizens who contribute to anti-terrorism objectives.The people who exposed this are heroes , not criminals .
They 've exposed a major security vulnerability before anyone could be hurt .
Unfortunately , the reputation the TSA and DHS has when private citizens come forward to report problems with their administration of policy , or the policies themselves , is atrocious .
They only option they had was a wide and public distribution -- if it could have been contained , they 'd vanish right along with the problem .
Moving forward the best thing to do is ; 1 .
Establish guidelines for reporting problems with administration of their policy     ( in the private sector , we euphemistically refer to these as " training opportunities " ) .2 .
Establish guidelines for reporting problems with operational security.3 .
Modify existing damage control procedures to focus more on problem resolution than image protection.4 .
ACCEPTING THAT SECURITY BREACHES WILL OCCUR , and have a reporting procedure and clear chain of command       ( thus far , they 've shown a remarkable lack of understanding of this key concept ) 5 .
Stop over-reacting to perceived security breaches -- it desensitizes people and worsens response time should a truly serious situation occur .
      Call it the " I cried wolf too many times " story .
Stories about the TSA used to make front page... now they 're barely slow news day material.The overarching objective here is to restore faith in the institution -- because the TSA has become the laughing stock of the media , and the flying public groans at the mention of it .
Remember only a few years ago when the TSA was created how people said they 'd willingly and happily stand in line for an hour and a half to get through the checkpoint , because they felt safer ?
Public opinion has dropped considerably since then -- now they 're afraid they 'll get the greased glove treatment if they so much as look at the equipment .
When a flight attendant flips out over someone 's request to have orange juice and then receives an official notice that they could be thrown in jail , charged with felonies , and be added to the no-fly list... There is a serious lack of understanding about both what security means , and the public 's perception of it .
And it 's nobody 's fault but the TSA 's for allowing this to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.A government agency responsible for securing billions of dollars in assets and millions of lives yearly now knows the exact scope and nature of a serious breach of security that otherwise wouldn't have been noticed and could have been exploited by people who are a genuine threat to national security, as opposed to a bunch of average americans who get to feel special for about five minutes.
Clearly, jailing the people who exposed this is the best route, as opposed to using a little-known fund that the DHS setup to reward private citizens who contribute to anti-terrorism objectives.The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals.
They've exposed a major security vulnerability before anyone could be hurt.
Unfortunately, the reputation the TSA and DHS has when private citizens come forward to report problems with their administration of policy, or the policies themselves, is atrocious.
They only option they had was a wide and public distribution -- if it could have been contained, they'd vanish right along with the problem.
Moving forward the best thing to do is;1.
Establish guidelines for reporting problems with administration of their policy
    (in the private sector, we euphemistically refer to these as "training opportunities").2.
Establish guidelines for reporting problems with operational security.3.
Modify existing damage control procedures to focus more on problem resolution than image protection.4.
ACCEPTING THAT SECURITY BREACHES WILL OCCUR, and have a reporting procedure and clear chain of command
      (thus far, they've shown a remarkable lack of understanding of this key concept)5.
Stop over-reacting to perceived security breaches -- it desensitizes people and worsens response time should a truly serious situation occur.
      Call it the "I cried wolf too many times" story.
Stories about the TSA used to make front page... now they're barely slow news day material.The overarching objective here is to restore faith in the institution -- because the TSA has become the laughing stock of the media, and the flying public groans at the mention of it.
Remember only a few years ago when the TSA was created how people said they'd willingly and happily stand in line for an hour and a half to get through the checkpoint, because they felt safer?
Public opinion has dropped considerably since then -- now they're afraid they'll get the greased glove treatment if they so much as look at the equipment.
When a flight attendant flips out over someone's request to have orange juice and then receives an official notice that they could be thrown in jail, charged with felonies, and be added to the no-fly list... There is a serious lack of understanding about both what security means, and the public's perception of it.
And it's nobody's fault but the TSA's for allowing this to happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403146</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>windex82</author>
	<datestamp>1260552900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it.</p><p>Why would action be taken against the sites with the document and not the person who was responsible for sanitizing the document before putting it out there for the world to see?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it.Why would action be taken against the sites with the document and not the person who was responsible for sanitizing the document before putting it out there for the world to see ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.Why would action be taken against the sites with the document and not the person who was responsible for sanitizing the document before putting it out there for the world to see?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30409952</id>
	<title>Personal Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what I never seem to see getting leaked?</p><p><i>Serious</i> intel.  Like the names of RL Seals and CIA operatives.  Names of prisoners, locations of forward bases and code names for those missions.  We never seem to hear about leaks of THAT sort of thing.  For example, there's a lot of code names for stuff that if it hit the news, people of this nation would literally shit themselves on the spot, right where they're standing.  It really <i>is</i> that scary.</p><p>But that sort of thing never seems to find it's way out.</p><p>I can tell you from experience, its not protected any better?  I saw a LOT of mistakes made with material that probably shouldn't have existed outside of a SCF.  But like I said, none of it makes it out.</p><p>What <b> <i>DOES</i> </b> make it out-with alarming regularity-is the stuff that will destroy America if it is allowed to go unknown, unseen and unchallenged.</p><p>So.  Here we have oodles and oodles of juicy, scary, genuine intel that would feed the media for the better part of a month as people begin to understand just how deep in the shit our government/military really is...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and stuff like <i>this</i> is all that comes up?</p><p>There's something odd about that.  And I'm not sure how to put it into words as to what it means.  For America, but also for humanity in general.</p><p>But I do know that it makes me feel good inside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what I never seem to see getting leaked ? Serious intel .
Like the names of RL Seals and CIA operatives .
Names of prisoners , locations of forward bases and code names for those missions .
We never seem to hear about leaks of THAT sort of thing .
For example , there 's a lot of code names for stuff that if it hit the news , people of this nation would literally shit themselves on the spot , right where they 're standing .
It really is that scary.But that sort of thing never seems to find it 's way out.I can tell you from experience , its not protected any better ?
I saw a LOT of mistakes made with material that probably should n't have existed outside of a SCF .
But like I said , none of it makes it out.What DOES make it out-with alarming regularity-is the stuff that will destroy America if it is allowed to go unknown , unseen and unchallenged.So .
Here we have oodles and oodles of juicy , scary , genuine intel that would feed the media for the better part of a month as people begin to understand just how deep in the shit our government/military really is... ...and stuff like this is all that comes up ? There 's something odd about that .
And I 'm not sure how to put it into words as to what it means .
For America , but also for humanity in general.But I do know that it makes me feel good inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what I never seem to see getting leaked?Serious intel.
Like the names of RL Seals and CIA operatives.
Names of prisoners, locations of forward bases and code names for those missions.
We never seem to hear about leaks of THAT sort of thing.
For example, there's a lot of code names for stuff that if it hit the news, people of this nation would literally shit themselves on the spot, right where they're standing.
It really is that scary.But that sort of thing never seems to find it's way out.I can tell you from experience, its not protected any better?
I saw a LOT of mistakes made with material that probably shouldn't have existed outside of a SCF.
But like I said, none of it makes it out.What  DOES  make it out-with alarming regularity-is the stuff that will destroy America if it is allowed to go unknown, unseen and unchallenged.So.
Here we have oodles and oodles of juicy, scary, genuine intel that would feed the media for the better part of a month as people begin to understand just how deep in the shit our government/military really is... ...and stuff like this is all that comes up?There's something odd about that.
And I'm not sure how to put it into words as to what it means.
For America, but also for humanity in general.But I do know that it makes me feel good inside.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404056</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260556260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Public opinion has dropped considerably since then -- now they're afraid they'll get the greased glove treatment if they so much as look at the equipment.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The funny thing is - without confirming or denying whether I'd read the document in question - is that if I <em>had</em> read the document in question, some of the redacted portions might actually be pretty reassuring.  As a practical matter, you really <em>might</em> have the right to just walk away from the guy with the rubber glove.  You'll miss your flight, and you'll probably be watched all the way out of the airport, but you won't be disappeared.
</p><p>
Of course, as a measure of how low public opinion of TSA has dropped... had I read such a thing in such a document, I would have been pleasantly surprised and reassured by the notion that TSA actually tells its goons that there really <em>are</em> limits on their powers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public opinion has dropped considerably since then -- now they 're afraid they 'll get the greased glove treatment if they so much as look at the equipment .
The funny thing is - without confirming or denying whether I 'd read the document in question - is that if I had read the document in question , some of the redacted portions might actually be pretty reassuring .
As a practical matter , you really might have the right to just walk away from the guy with the rubber glove .
You 'll miss your flight , and you 'll probably be watched all the way out of the airport , but you wo n't be disappeared .
Of course , as a measure of how low public opinion of TSA has dropped... had I read such a thing in such a document , I would have been pleasantly surprised and reassured by the notion that TSA actually tells its goons that there really are limits on their powers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public opinion has dropped considerably since then -- now they're afraid they'll get the greased glove treatment if they so much as look at the equipment.
The funny thing is - without confirming or denying whether I'd read the document in question - is that if I had read the document in question, some of the redacted portions might actually be pretty reassuring.
As a practical matter, you really might have the right to just walk away from the guy with the rubber glove.
You'll miss your flight, and you'll probably be watched all the way out of the airport, but you won't be disappeared.
Of course, as a measure of how low public opinion of TSA has dropped... had I read such a thing in such a document, I would have been pleasantly surprised and reassured by the notion that TSA actually tells its goons that there really are limits on their powers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402672</id>
	<title>CNN, FOX, etc...?</title>
	<author>xirusmom</author>
	<datestamp>1260551100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I first learned about the leak on CNN. They may have not showed the text on TV (I did not look on their site for it), but they sure talked about some of the contents and now I know that if I have a prosthetic leg I can bring, say, some maple syrup from Canada.
If Wikileaks is hosting the content, so is CNN, and FOX, and....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I first learned about the leak on CNN .
They may have not showed the text on TV ( I did not look on their site for it ) , but they sure talked about some of the contents and now I know that if I have a prosthetic leg I can bring , say , some maple syrup from Canada .
If Wikileaks is hosting the content , so is CNN , and FOX , and... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first learned about the leak on CNN.
They may have not showed the text on TV (I did not look on their site for it), but they sure talked about some of the contents and now I know that if I have a prosthetic leg I can bring, say, some maple syrup from Canada.
If Wikileaks is hosting the content, so is CNN, and FOX, and....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403924</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1260555720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C'mon, people shoot the messengers every day of the year. Why should today be any different?</htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon , people shoot the messengers every day of the year .
Why should today be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon, people shoot the messengers every day of the year.
Why should today be any different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404042</id>
	<title>You mean they don't want us knowing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260556140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean they don't want us knowing what they are doing? Surely, you jest, sir! On the other hand, to use their oft repeated mantra, "If you have nothing to hide, then it won't matter, will it?" So which will it be? Openness or secrecy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean they do n't want us knowing what they are doing ?
Surely , you jest , sir !
On the other hand , to use their oft repeated mantra , " If you have nothing to hide , then it wo n't matter , will it ?
" So which will it be ?
Openness or secrecy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean they don't want us knowing what they are doing?
Surely, you jest, sir!
On the other hand, to use their oft repeated mantra, "If you have nothing to hide, then it won't matter, will it?
" So which will it be?
Openness or secrecy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406540</id>
	<title>Wait a sec ...</title>
	<author>PinkyGigglebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1260524160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the same crowd that is always saying "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"??<br> <br>Since they are now trying so hard to hide things one has to wonder what they have to fear.<br> <br>I think my sig is particularly relevant in situation like this.<br>For those not logged in;<br>"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge,<br> for in their hearts the dream themselves your Master."<br>(yes it is a paraphrase from SMAC)<br> <br>I think one of the things those in power fear the most is an educated population.<br> <br># start conspiracy theory<br> This would explain why education budgets are some of the first to get trimmed or looted and why things like "no child left behind" seem to be designed to fail.  Keep the population ignorant and distracted and the government can get away almost anything. This would explain why the US educational system has gone from one of the best to almost dead last in the world.<br># end conspiracy theory</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the same crowd that is always saying " If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear " ? ?
Since they are now trying so hard to hide things one has to wonder what they have to fear .
I think my sig is particularly relevant in situation like this.For those not logged in ; " Beware those who would deny you Knowledge , for in their hearts the dream themselves your Master .
" ( yes it is a paraphrase from SMAC ) I think one of the things those in power fear the most is an educated population .
# start conspiracy theory This would explain why education budgets are some of the first to get trimmed or looted and why things like " no child left behind " seem to be designed to fail .
Keep the population ignorant and distracted and the government can get away almost anything .
This would explain why the US educational system has gone from one of the best to almost dead last in the world. # end conspiracy theory</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the same crowd that is always saying "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"??
Since they are now trying so hard to hide things one has to wonder what they have to fear.
I think my sig is particularly relevant in situation like this.For those not logged in;"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, for in their hearts the dream themselves your Master.
"(yes it is a paraphrase from SMAC) I think one of the things those in power fear the most is an educated population.
# start conspiracy theory This would explain why education budgets are some of the first to get trimmed or looted and why things like "no child left behind" seem to be designed to fail.
Keep the population ignorant and distracted and the government can get away almost anything.
This would explain why the US educational system has gone from one of the best to almost dead last in the world.# end conspiracy theory</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402876</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1260552060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Messrs, Dent, Bilirakis, and King,</p><p>Since your high school civics classes obviously forgot to include it in your course of study, please allow me to introduce you to <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1" title="usconstitution.net">the First Amendment</a> [usconstitution.net] to the United States Constitution.:</p><blockquote><div><p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; <b>or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press</b>; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</p></div></blockquote><p>(Emphasis is mine).</p><p>Thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Messrs , Dent , Bilirakis , and King,Since your high school civics classes obviously forgot to include it in your course of study , please allow me to introduce you to the First Amendment [ usconstitution.net ] to the United States Constitution .
: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances .
( Emphasis is mine ) .Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Messrs, Dent, Bilirakis, and King,Since your high school civics classes obviously forgot to include it in your course of study, please allow me to introduce you to the First Amendment [usconstitution.net] to the United States Constitution.
:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(Emphasis is mine).Thank you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30415872</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260646620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>And that would work because terrorists trying to get through security would never leave the US and would not know anyone outside the US?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers .
And that would work because terrorists trying to get through security would never leave the US and would not know anyone outside the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers.
And that would work because terrorists trying to get through security would never leave the US and would not know anyone outside the US?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30413868</id>
	<title>Re:Once it's out of the bag..</title>
	<author>sdkee</author>
	<datestamp>1260632640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.

The document should have never been secret.

We supposedly live in a democratic society.  We pat ourselves on the back at how incredibly enlightened we are for being this way.

But then we hide EVERYTHING from the voters.

Tell me, fellow nerds:  If the voters have no access to the info, then how does it help that they are voting?  Why not just put on blindfolds while voting?

Government secrecy is fundamentally incompatible with democratic elections.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The document should have never been secret .
We supposedly live in a democratic society .
We pat ourselves on the back at how incredibly enlightened we are for being this way .
But then we hide EVERYTHING from the voters .
Tell me , fellow nerds : If the voters have no access to the info , then how does it help that they are voting ?
Why not just put on blindfolds while voting ?
Government secrecy is fundamentally incompatible with democratic elections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The document should have never been secret.
We supposedly live in a democratic society.
We pat ourselves on the back at how incredibly enlightened we are for being this way.
But then we hide EVERYTHING from the voters.
Tell me, fellow nerds:  If the voters have no access to the info, then how does it help that they are voting?
Why not just put on blindfolds while voting?
Government secrecy is fundamentally incompatible with democratic elections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402862</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar Appears Correct To Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the link you provided:</p><p><i>The auxiliary verb--has or have--changes to agree with its subject </i></p><p>In this case the subject is plural and you want "have", not "has".  Consider this:</p><p><i>How <b>have</b>/has the dog and the cat been doing?</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the link you provided : The auxiliary verb--has or have--changes to agree with its subject In this case the subject is plural and you want " have " , not " has " .
Consider this : How have/has the dog and the cat been doing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the link you provided:The auxiliary verb--has or have--changes to agree with its subject In this case the subject is plural and you want "have", not "has".
Consider this:How have/has the dog and the cat been doing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402534</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom of  the press.  I don't see any way that they could legislate this without the Supreme Court overruling them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of the press .
I do n't see any way that they could legislate this without the Supreme Court overruling them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom of  the press.
I don't see any way that they could legislate this without the Supreme Court overruling them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</id>
	<title>Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260549360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything.  Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control?  Do they not remember the values of their party?

</p><p>Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who could n't regulate anything .
Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control ?
Do they not remember the values of their party ?
Maybe they only want a powerful government when it 's convenient for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything.
Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control?
Do they not remember the values of their party?
Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402226</id>
	<title>Like Google CEO Says...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1260549180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story, " If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".<br>(of course the fascist said it pertaining to personal privacy, but the sentiment really belongs to government transparency.)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Now the fat ibogaine addicted swine are mudwrestling and brandishing weapons trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.<br>Anything to draw the publics attention away from the fact that not only do they not uphold their constitutional duties, but they have every intention of slowly subverting and perverting the constitution to suit their power hungry needs.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; shutdown -r apocalypse now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story , " If you 've done nothing wrong , you 've got nothing to hide " .
( of course the fascist said it pertaining to personal privacy , but the sentiment really belongs to government transparency .
)         Now the fat ibogaine addicted swine are mudwrestling and brandishing weapons trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.Anything to draw the publics attention away from the fact that not only do they not uphold their constitutional duties , but they have every intention of slowly subverting and perverting the constitution to suit their power hungry needs .
                shutdown -r apocalypse now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story, " If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".
(of course the fascist said it pertaining to personal privacy, but the sentiment really belongs to government transparency.
)
        Now the fat ibogaine addicted swine are mudwrestling and brandishing weapons trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.Anything to draw the publics attention away from the fact that not only do they not uphold their constitutional duties, but they have every intention of slowly subverting and perverting the constitution to suit their power hungry needs.
                shutdown -r apocalypse now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30410130</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260545820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without advocating a completely run government medical system, I'm going to say that the reason I think healthcare is inherently different from food, water, shelter, clothing, and heat is that there are no (non-luxury) usages of those basics that will cost 10x the average annual salary for an unavoidable 18 day usage of the commodity. In healthcare, you might need a liver transplant to save your life, spend 18 days in the hospital as a result, and end up with a bill that is 10x your annual salary. In comparison, the costs you mention are regular, predictable, and affordable. If I cannot afford to eat lobster and steak, I can eat ground chuck and rice, and I won't die. If Versace and Kors are out of my budget, I go to Walmart or a thrift store, keep older clothes longer, and I won't die. If I can't afford the luxury condo on top of the building facing central park, I rent an apartment in a seedy part of the South Bronx with 3 close friends and (if I don't become a victim of crime) I won't die. The costs of the basic necessities won't exceed my income, and if they do, I will qualify for assistance. If I cannot afford to have the malignant glioblastoma removed, I can't choose something cheaper. I can't even wait until I can afford it. I'll be dead in a few weeks if it isn't treated.<p>Now, all that aside, there are other options than our system, and a "government take over". The problem is that there is a lot of money to be made selling things that people can't do without, there's a lot of money to be made denying people coverage, and there's a lot of money that can be donated to political campaigns, and to run scare ads, etc., for both sides. You clearly are against a "government takeover", and I can certainly sympathize with that, but I'm not convinced that a government takeover is really what anyone but some radical fringe groups are proposing. I'm also very open to (you might say begging for) alternative suggestions. Real, well thought out suggestions, open to debate. Not just "tort reform", which some appear to believe is some sort of healthcare magic bullet, but which the GAO believes would have only single digit percentage influence at best, and which has shown little or no results in states where it has been tried. So, I guess I'm saying let's have more honest debate, less parroting of slogans, less shouting of talking points, less mischaractherization to impart fear (the end of the country! chaos in the streets! death panels! it's just like Nazi Germany!), and maybe together we can avoid a solution so heavily dependent on the government. But so far, "the free market" has brought us the highest per capita spending on healthcare in the world, but less than the best outcomes. It's given us 30 million uninsured, and thousands of personal bankruptcies every year. We can do better, can't we?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without advocating a completely run government medical system , I 'm going to say that the reason I think healthcare is inherently different from food , water , shelter , clothing , and heat is that there are no ( non-luxury ) usages of those basics that will cost 10x the average annual salary for an unavoidable 18 day usage of the commodity .
In healthcare , you might need a liver transplant to save your life , spend 18 days in the hospital as a result , and end up with a bill that is 10x your annual salary .
In comparison , the costs you mention are regular , predictable , and affordable .
If I can not afford to eat lobster and steak , I can eat ground chuck and rice , and I wo n't die .
If Versace and Kors are out of my budget , I go to Walmart or a thrift store , keep older clothes longer , and I wo n't die .
If I ca n't afford the luxury condo on top of the building facing central park , I rent an apartment in a seedy part of the South Bronx with 3 close friends and ( if I do n't become a victim of crime ) I wo n't die .
The costs of the basic necessities wo n't exceed my income , and if they do , I will qualify for assistance .
If I can not afford to have the malignant glioblastoma removed , I ca n't choose something cheaper .
I ca n't even wait until I can afford it .
I 'll be dead in a few weeks if it is n't treated.Now , all that aside , there are other options than our system , and a " government take over " .
The problem is that there is a lot of money to be made selling things that people ca n't do without , there 's a lot of money to be made denying people coverage , and there 's a lot of money that can be donated to political campaigns , and to run scare ads , etc. , for both sides .
You clearly are against a " government takeover " , and I can certainly sympathize with that , but I 'm not convinced that a government takeover is really what anyone but some radical fringe groups are proposing .
I 'm also very open to ( you might say begging for ) alternative suggestions .
Real , well thought out suggestions , open to debate .
Not just " tort reform " , which some appear to believe is some sort of healthcare magic bullet , but which the GAO believes would have only single digit percentage influence at best , and which has shown little or no results in states where it has been tried .
So , I guess I 'm saying let 's have more honest debate , less parroting of slogans , less shouting of talking points , less mischaractherization to impart fear ( the end of the country !
chaos in the streets !
death panels !
it 's just like Nazi Germany !
) , and maybe together we can avoid a solution so heavily dependent on the government .
But so far , " the free market " has brought us the highest per capita spending on healthcare in the world , but less than the best outcomes .
It 's given us 30 million uninsured , and thousands of personal bankruptcies every year .
We can do better , ca n't we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without advocating a completely run government medical system, I'm going to say that the reason I think healthcare is inherently different from food, water, shelter, clothing, and heat is that there are no (non-luxury) usages of those basics that will cost 10x the average annual salary for an unavoidable 18 day usage of the commodity.
In healthcare, you might need a liver transplant to save your life, spend 18 days in the hospital as a result, and end up with a bill that is 10x your annual salary.
In comparison, the costs you mention are regular, predictable, and affordable.
If I cannot afford to eat lobster and steak, I can eat ground chuck and rice, and I won't die.
If Versace and Kors are out of my budget, I go to Walmart or a thrift store, keep older clothes longer, and I won't die.
If I can't afford the luxury condo on top of the building facing central park, I rent an apartment in a seedy part of the South Bronx with 3 close friends and (if I don't become a victim of crime) I won't die.
The costs of the basic necessities won't exceed my income, and if they do, I will qualify for assistance.
If I cannot afford to have the malignant glioblastoma removed, I can't choose something cheaper.
I can't even wait until I can afford it.
I'll be dead in a few weeks if it isn't treated.Now, all that aside, there are other options than our system, and a "government take over".
The problem is that there is a lot of money to be made selling things that people can't do without, there's a lot of money to be made denying people coverage, and there's a lot of money that can be donated to political campaigns, and to run scare ads, etc., for both sides.
You clearly are against a "government takeover", and I can certainly sympathize with that, but I'm not convinced that a government takeover is really what anyone but some radical fringe groups are proposing.
I'm also very open to (you might say begging for) alternative suggestions.
Real, well thought out suggestions, open to debate.
Not just "tort reform", which some appear to believe is some sort of healthcare magic bullet, but which the GAO believes would have only single digit percentage influence at best, and which has shown little or no results in states where it has been tried.
So, I guess I'm saying let's have more honest debate, less parroting of slogans, less shouting of talking points, less mischaractherization to impart fear (the end of the country!
chaos in the streets!
death panels!
it's just like Nazi Germany!
), and maybe together we can avoid a solution so heavily dependent on the government.
But so far, "the free market" has brought us the highest per capita spending on healthcare in the world, but less than the best outcomes.
It's given us 30 million uninsured, and thousands of personal bankruptcies every year.
We can do better, can't we?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403018</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Dear My Government, It's Officers, Agents, And All Of That:</i>
<br>
<br>
I don't think they're reading slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear My Government , It 's Officers , Agents , And All Of That : I do n't think they 're reading slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear My Government, It's Officers, Agents, And All Of That:


I don't think they're reading slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304</id>
	<title>Retards in office.</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1260549480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country? Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can <em>remove</em> data from the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country ?
Like , seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country?
Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407402</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260528360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything. Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control? Do they not remember the values of their party?</p> </div><p>If you're really that old, then you should know the answers to those questions.  The seeds of the malady now afflicting the Republican party were planted even before Goldwater's failed presidential bid, but it's that election loss which fed egregious elements within the party.  The Republican party is dramatically different from what it was just half a century ago, and mostly for the worse.  I recall coining the term "RINO", Republicans-in-Name-Only, long before it started appearing in various blogs sometime around 2006.  My idea of the term was far different from how it's now applied to denigrate today's minority of Republicans who aren't, roughly speaking, ultra-right religiously motivated idealogues (or even fascists, for those prone to mild hyperbole).  To me, it's the neocons and their ilk who are the RINOs, but now I can't use my own term without being gravely misunderstood.  Should've become a journalist or pundit if I wanted it to gain any traction, I guess.  Imagine how Goldwater would have reacted to Santorum.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?</p></div><p>I believe this can be said for politicians of any party, including most, if not all, of the minor ones.<br>
<br>
- T<br>
<br>
[Captcha is "circus".  Funny or sad?  You decide.]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who could n't regulate anything .
Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control ?
Do they not remember the values of their party ?
If you 're really that old , then you should know the answers to those questions .
The seeds of the malady now afflicting the Republican party were planted even before Goldwater 's failed presidential bid , but it 's that election loss which fed egregious elements within the party .
The Republican party is dramatically different from what it was just half a century ago , and mostly for the worse .
I recall coining the term " RINO " , Republicans-in-Name-Only , long before it started appearing in various blogs sometime around 2006 .
My idea of the term was far different from how it 's now applied to denigrate today 's minority of Republicans who are n't , roughly speaking , ultra-right religiously motivated idealogues ( or even fascists , for those prone to mild hyperbole ) .
To me , it 's the neocons and their ilk who are the RINOs , but now I ca n't use my own term without being gravely misunderstood .
Should 've become a journalist or pundit if I wanted it to gain any traction , I guess .
Imagine how Goldwater would have reacted to Santorum.Maybe they only want a powerful government when it 's convenient for them ? I believe this can be said for politicians of any party , including most , if not all , of the minor ones .
- T [ Captcha is " circus " .
Funny or sad ?
You decide .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything.
Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control?
Do they not remember the values of their party?
If you're really that old, then you should know the answers to those questions.
The seeds of the malady now afflicting the Republican party were planted even before Goldwater's failed presidential bid, but it's that election loss which fed egregious elements within the party.
The Republican party is dramatically different from what it was just half a century ago, and mostly for the worse.
I recall coining the term "RINO", Republicans-in-Name-Only, long before it started appearing in various blogs sometime around 2006.
My idea of the term was far different from how it's now applied to denigrate today's minority of Republicans who aren't, roughly speaking, ultra-right religiously motivated idealogues (or even fascists, for those prone to mild hyperbole).
To me, it's the neocons and their ilk who are the RINOs, but now I can't use my own term without being gravely misunderstood.
Should've become a journalist or pundit if I wanted it to gain any traction, I guess.
Imagine how Goldwater would have reacted to Santorum.Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?I believe this can be said for politicians of any party, including most, if not all, of the minor ones.
- T

[Captcha is "circus".
Funny or sad?
You decide.
]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402710</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter that we screwed up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just don't let anyone talk about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do n't let anyone talk about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just don't let anyone talk about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405964</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1260564480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't confuse neo-conservatives with Replicans. GW Bush was NOT a good Republican; he diverged widely from traditional Republican values of fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility.<br> <br>
Libertarianism is an option for someone who believes in liberty in all areas, but you are correct, it is not currently a viable political party in most elections.<br> <br> <i>The free market doesn't work for health care.</i> Amen to that. Health care is the only industry I know of where having several competing providers in a single market makes costs go up instead of down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse neo-conservatives with Replicans .
GW Bush was NOT a good Republican ; he diverged widely from traditional Republican values of fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility .
Libertarianism is an option for someone who believes in liberty in all areas , but you are correct , it is not currently a viable political party in most elections .
The free market does n't work for health care .
Amen to that .
Health care is the only industry I know of where having several competing providers in a single market makes costs go up instead of down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse neo-conservatives with Replicans.
GW Bush was NOT a good Republican; he diverged widely from traditional Republican values of fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility.
Libertarianism is an option for someone who believes in liberty in all areas, but you are correct, it is not currently a viable political party in most elections.
The free market doesn't work for health care.
Amen to that.
Health care is the only industry I know of where having several competing providers in a single market makes costs go up instead of down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402912</id>
	<title>Re:Sic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Editor/submitter may see DHS as a plural (a collection of individuals), thus changing that 'has' to a 'have'. Personally, I'm not sure which is grammatically correct, but it looks alright to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Editor/submitter may see DHS as a plural ( a collection of individuals ) , thus changing that 'has ' to a 'have' .
Personally , I 'm not sure which is grammatically correct , but it looks alright to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editor/submitter may see DHS as a plural (a collection of individuals), thus changing that 'has' to a 'have'.
Personally, I'm not sure which is grammatically correct, but it looks alright to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403070</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You hit the nail on the head.  The problem is that both parties are after control, just in different ways.  The Republicans usually do it by enforcing a religious view of what is 'Right' and 'Wrong'. The Democrats do it through dependence by making sure people can't function without the government.<br>A true republican would say the government has no right to legislate peoples personal life and information about the government should be easily available.<br>Don't expect it to ever happen because the American people have become dependent on the Government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You hit the nail on the head .
The problem is that both parties are after control , just in different ways .
The Republicans usually do it by enforcing a religious view of what is 'Right ' and 'Wrong' .
The Democrats do it through dependence by making sure people ca n't function without the government.A true republican would say the government has no right to legislate peoples personal life and information about the government should be easily available.Do n't expect it to ever happen because the American people have become dependent on the Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You hit the nail on the head.
The problem is that both parties are after control, just in different ways.
The Republicans usually do it by enforcing a religious view of what is 'Right' and 'Wrong'.
The Democrats do it through dependence by making sure people can't function without the government.A true republican would say the government has no right to legislate peoples personal life and information about the government should be easily available.Don't expect it to ever happen because the American people have become dependent on the Government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406716</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1260525000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, the cat is out of the bag, and you can't un-ring that bell. The net is interesting in that respect, it has a LONG memory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , the cat is out of the bag , and you ca n't un-ring that bell .
The net is interesting in that respect , it has a LONG memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, the cat is out of the bag, and you can't un-ring that bell.
The net is interesting in that respect, it has a LONG memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403172</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>divide overflow</author>
	<datestamp>1260553020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?</p></div><p>More accurately, <i>they only want a powerful government when they are in power.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they only want a powerful government when it 's convenient for them ? More accurately , they only want a powerful government when they are in power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?More accurately, they only want a powerful government when they are in power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407158</id>
	<title>DHS</title>
	<author>csartanis</author>
	<datestamp>1260526920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does the department of homeland security have to do with prosecuting people hosting the document?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does the department of homeland security have to do with prosecuting people hosting the document ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does the department of homeland security have to do with prosecuting people hosting the document?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402844</id>
	<title>that was predictable</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1260551880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And there I was, thinking I was funny:<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470306&amp;cid=30363244" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470306&amp;cid=30363244</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>And now they're doing it.</p><p>Can we please re-introduce the death penalty for stupidity? Back in the days, before the whole "civilization" nonsense, fuckers like these wouldn't have survived long enough to demonstrate that there <b>is</b> a perfect vaccuum in this universe - inside their heads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there I was , thinking I was funny : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1470306&amp;cid = 30363244 [ slashdot.org ] And now they 're doing it.Can we please re-introduce the death penalty for stupidity ?
Back in the days , before the whole " civilization " nonsense , fuckers like these would n't have survived long enough to demonstrate that there is a perfect vaccuum in this universe - inside their heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there I was, thinking I was funny:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470306&amp;cid=30363244 [slashdot.org]And now they're doing it.Can we please re-introduce the death penalty for stupidity?
Back in the days, before the whole "civilization" nonsense, fuckers like these wouldn't have survived long enough to demonstrate that there is a perfect vaccuum in this universe - inside their heads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406612</id>
	<title>Re:Source???</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1260524520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just read through all TSA security manuals and don't find anything about this road being dangerous.</p></div><p>I read the TSA manual.  I didn't see anything that was particularly dangerous.  Most of it SOP for anybody involved in the security (public or private) business.
</p><p>I would wager that they are more worried about embarrassment than security.  The part of the document that stuck out in my mind was the list of exemptions from enhanced security screenings.  Your friendly local Congress-critter need not worry about dealing with security in the same manner as us mere plebs.  All he or she has to do if selected for the enhanced screening is show a Congressional ID and the TSA folks are supposed to fold like a cheap suit.  So much for all citizens being equal under the law.
</p><p>Another thing I could find to bitch about is the practice at certain airports of giving first class passengers their own special queue to the security checkpoint.  How is it that the Government tolerates this practice when it's our tax dollars funding the security system?  TSA's answer on this is cute too, "We aren't in charge of the line, the airport is".  Nice little cop out, isn't it?
</p><p>All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read through all TSA security manuals and do n't find anything about this road being dangerous.I read the TSA manual .
I did n't see anything that was particularly dangerous .
Most of it SOP for anybody involved in the security ( public or private ) business .
I would wager that they are more worried about embarrassment than security .
The part of the document that stuck out in my mind was the list of exemptions from enhanced security screenings .
Your friendly local Congress-critter need not worry about dealing with security in the same manner as us mere plebs .
All he or she has to do if selected for the enhanced screening is show a Congressional ID and the TSA folks are supposed to fold like a cheap suit .
So much for all citizens being equal under the law .
Another thing I could find to bitch about is the practice at certain airports of giving first class passengers their own special queue to the security checkpoint .
How is it that the Government tolerates this practice when it 's our tax dollars funding the security system ?
TSA 's answer on this is cute too , " We are n't in charge of the line , the airport is " .
Nice little cop out , is n't it ?
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read through all TSA security manuals and don't find anything about this road being dangerous.I read the TSA manual.
I didn't see anything that was particularly dangerous.
Most of it SOP for anybody involved in the security (public or private) business.
I would wager that they are more worried about embarrassment than security.
The part of the document that stuck out in my mind was the list of exemptions from enhanced security screenings.
Your friendly local Congress-critter need not worry about dealing with security in the same manner as us mere plebs.
All he or she has to do if selected for the enhanced screening is show a Congressional ID and the TSA folks are supposed to fold like a cheap suit.
So much for all citizens being equal under the law.
Another thing I could find to bitch about is the practice at certain airports of giving first class passengers their own special queue to the security checkpoint.
How is it that the Government tolerates this practice when it's our tax dollars funding the security system?
TSA's answer on this is cute too, "We aren't in charge of the line, the airport is".
Nice little cop out, isn't it?
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405346</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260561540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still waiting for TFA to load, but</p><blockquote><div><p>Peter T. King (R-NY) asked, 'How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?'</p></div></blockquote><ol> <li>The DHS is a single entity with many parts. You don't ask "do my car have enough gas" unless you're part of certain American subcultures. Yes, I know this is how they do it in Britain but it sounds silly to my ears. How has DHS addressed the "problem"? How have the people of DHS addressed it?</li><li>These bozos want to prosecute someone but they can't think of a specific crime to charge them with or any law to do it?</li><li>If the files are hosted by foreigners in a foreign country, I don't see how any American law could apply</li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">Barbara Streisand</a> [wikipedia.org]</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still waiting for TFA to load , butPeter T. King ( R-NY ) asked , 'How has [ sic ] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites , and what legal action , if any , can be taken to compel its removal ?
' The DHS is a single entity with many parts .
You do n't ask " do my car have enough gas " unless you 're part of certain American subcultures .
Yes , I know this is how they do it in Britain but it sounds silly to my ears .
How has DHS addressed the " problem " ?
How have the people of DHS addressed it ? These bozos want to prosecute someone but they ca n't think of a specific crime to charge them with or any law to do it ? If the files are hosted by foreigners in a foreign country , I do n't see how any American law could apply Barbara Streisand [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still waiting for TFA to load, butPeter T. King (R-NY) asked, 'How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?
' The DHS is a single entity with many parts.
You don't ask "do my car have enough gas" unless you're part of certain American subcultures.
Yes, I know this is how they do it in Britain but it sounds silly to my ears.
How has DHS addressed the "problem"?
How have the people of DHS addressed it?These bozos want to prosecute someone but they can't think of a specific crime to charge them with or any law to do it?If the files are hosted by foreigners in a foreign country, I don't see how any American law could apply Barbara Streisand [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402504</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Congress will ever understand the nature of the internet...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Congress will ever understand the nature of the internet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Congress will ever understand the nature of the internet...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402586</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its Officers, without the apostrophe. "It's" is short for "it is". "Its" is the possessive form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its Officers , without the apostrophe .
" It 's " is short for " it is " .
" Its " is the possessive form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its Officers, without the apostrophe.
"It's" is short for "it is".
"Its" is the possessive form.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403218</id>
	<title>Re:Sic?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1260553140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No - the summary speaks of *two* agencies being involved, and so "have" is correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No - the summary speaks of * two * agencies being involved , and so " have " is correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No - the summary speaks of *two* agencies being involved, and so "have" is correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402664</id>
	<title>How do they feel about the CRU leaks?</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1260551100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Republican representatives... when WikiLeaks is being used to post information you object to, you want it investigated.</p><p>I trust the same outrage applies to the emails stolen from the CRU and posted on WikiLeaks?  Or does your interest in privacy only apply to issues you care about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Republican representatives... when WikiLeaks is being used to post information you object to , you want it investigated.I trust the same outrage applies to the emails stolen from the CRU and posted on WikiLeaks ?
Or does your interest in privacy only apply to issues you care about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Republican representatives... when WikiLeaks is being used to post information you object to, you want it investigated.I trust the same outrage applies to the emails stolen from the CRU and posted on WikiLeaks?
Or does your interest in privacy only apply to issues you care about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404916</id>
	<title>wikileaks is run by US Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikileaks is run in cooperation with the US intelligence apparatus.  It will not be shut down.  This investigation will just go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks is run in cooperation with the US intelligence apparatus .
It will not be shut down .
This investigation will just go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks is run in cooperation with the US intelligence apparatus.
It will not be shut down.
This investigation will just go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405448</id>
	<title>Re:I can answer that for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260562020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What can they do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nothing"</p><p>They can twist the international law to suit their need as they still are seen as a military super-power. "Our way or the highway"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What can they do ... nothing " They can twist the international law to suit their need as they still are seen as a military super-power .
" Our way or the highway "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What can they do ... nothing"They can twist the international law to suit their need as they still are seen as a military super-power.
"Our way or the highway"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402196</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260549060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your national security relies on censorship in this day and age, you're just not doing it right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your national security relies on censorship in this day and age , you 're just not doing it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your national security relies on censorship in this day and age, you're just not doing it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404352</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260557280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what all the fuss is about.  It's a serious security breach due to someone at the TSA seriously screwing up, but we need to keep it in perspective.  It's not like they accidentally uploaded a movie to bitorrent or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what all the fuss is about .
It 's a serious security breach due to someone at the TSA seriously screwing up , but we need to keep it in perspective .
It 's not like they accidentally uploaded a movie to bitorrent or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what all the fuss is about.
It's a serious security breach due to someone at the TSA seriously screwing up, but we need to keep it in perspective.
It's not like they accidentally uploaded a movie to bitorrent or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402366</id>
	<title>Re:Dear My Government...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260549720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or use psychic paper.</p></div><p>What do you mean?  It's blank.</p><p>P.S.: Well said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or use psychic paper.What do you mean ?
It 's blank.P.S .
: Well said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or use psychic paper.What do you mean?
It's blank.P.S.
: Well said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402136</id>
	<title>My email to Gus</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1260548760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know transparency terrifies you &amp; your ilk, but I hope you get a clue &amp; leave Wikileaks alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know transparency terrifies you &amp; your ilk , but I hope you get a clue &amp; leave Wikileaks alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know transparency terrifies you &amp; your ilk, but I hope you get a clue &amp; leave Wikileaks alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404146</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260556560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, Republicans from the 80's wouldn't be shocked - remember Reagan? Star Wars? Billions and billions of dollars flushed down a massive hole labeled "missile defense"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , Republicans from the 80 's would n't be shocked - remember Reagan ?
Star Wars ?
Billions and billions of dollars flushed down a massive hole labeled " missile defense " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, Republicans from the 80's wouldn't be shocked - remember Reagan?
Star Wars?
Billions and billions of dollars flushed down a massive hole labeled "missile defense"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402964</id>
	<title>Excuse me, but how is Wikileaks responsible?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1260552300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that not knowing a law does not protect from not being prosecuted under it, but isn't there some provision that if you cannot know that you break the law (e.g. because, say, you don't even know that distribution of the information is not allowed) you cannot be prosecuted? I know it applies to buying stolen merchandize in good faith, it also applies to distributing information that someone else broke an NDA for (say I'm under an NDA to not give out information, break it and tell it to you and you publish it), why is this supposedly different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that not knowing a law does not protect from not being prosecuted under it , but is n't there some provision that if you can not know that you break the law ( e.g .
because , say , you do n't even know that distribution of the information is not allowed ) you can not be prosecuted ?
I know it applies to buying stolen merchandize in good faith , it also applies to distributing information that someone else broke an NDA for ( say I 'm under an NDA to not give out information , break it and tell it to you and you publish it ) , why is this supposedly different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that not knowing a law does not protect from not being prosecuted under it, but isn't there some provision that if you cannot know that you break the law (e.g.
because, say, you don't even know that distribution of the information is not allowed) you cannot be prosecuted?
I know it applies to buying stolen merchandize in good faith, it also applies to distributing information that someone else broke an NDA for (say I'm under an NDA to not give out information, break it and tell it to you and you publish it), why is this supposedly different?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402786</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>robw810</author>
	<datestamp>1260551700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Democrats and Republicans are only different with respect to how *far* they want to crawl up your ass and what they want to do once they get there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Democrats and Republicans are only different with respect to how * far * they want to crawl up your ass and what they want to do once they get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Democrats and Republicans are only different with respect to how *far* they want to crawl up your ass and what they want to do once they get there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405038</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1260560280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a relatively free market works so well for food, water, shelter, clothing, and heat (all basic human needs that are a much higher priority to one's continued existence) but fails for healthcare. Healthcare is not inherently a magical good that is not subject to market forces. No, using our ridiculous government-enforced, highly-regulated current model as an example of failure does not count. Our current system has some benefits (relatively good overall care if you can pay) and a ton of problems. No one who doesn't have their hand in the medical industry's pocket disagrees with that, it's just that people have decided that "reform" mean "have the government take it over completely."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a relatively free market works so well for food , water , shelter , clothing , and heat ( all basic human needs that are a much higher priority to one 's continued existence ) but fails for healthcare .
Healthcare is not inherently a magical good that is not subject to market forces .
No , using our ridiculous government-enforced , highly-regulated current model as an example of failure does not count .
Our current system has some benefits ( relatively good overall care if you can pay ) and a ton of problems .
No one who does n't have their hand in the medical industry 's pocket disagrees with that , it 's just that people have decided that " reform " mean " have the government take it over completely .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a relatively free market works so well for food, water, shelter, clothing, and heat (all basic human needs that are a much higher priority to one's continued existence) but fails for healthcare.
Healthcare is not inherently a magical good that is not subject to market forces.
No, using our ridiculous government-enforced, highly-regulated current model as an example of failure does not count.
Our current system has some benefits (relatively good overall care if you can pay) and a ton of problems.
No one who doesn't have their hand in the medical industry's pocket disagrees with that, it's just that people have decided that "reform" mean "have the government take it over completely.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402872</id>
	<title>Re:NO!!</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1260552060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And oh so slippery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And oh so slippery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And oh so slippery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403166</id>
	<title>Re:They posted what was released</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am pretty sure that ctrl-a, ctrl-c, ctrl-v are covered as circumvention measures as per the DMCA.</p><p>God I wish I was kidding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure that ctrl-a , ctrl-c , ctrl-v are covered as circumvention measures as per the DMCA.God I wish I was kidding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure that ctrl-a, ctrl-c, ctrl-v are covered as circumvention measures as per the DMCA.God I wish I was kidding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403062</id>
	<title>Re:Retards in office.</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1260552600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is exactly why you do not want to convince people to vote.  A low voter turn-out can be a very good thing if the turn-out is low because only people who have educated themselves on the issues at hand will go vote.
<br> <br>
It is when the educated get apathetic enough to stop going to polls that we need to start worrying.
<br> <br>
I admit that my attitude is at least slightly elitist but I would like to propose a system where people get extra votes based on some sort of a test or quiz that they can fill out that would test their IQ and their knowledge of relevant facts.  Now that would make interesting results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is exactly why you do not want to convince people to vote .
A low voter turn-out can be a very good thing if the turn-out is low because only people who have educated themselves on the issues at hand will go vote .
It is when the educated get apathetic enough to stop going to polls that we need to start worrying .
I admit that my attitude is at least slightly elitist but I would like to propose a system where people get extra votes based on some sort of a test or quiz that they can fill out that would test their IQ and their knowledge of relevant facts .
Now that would make interesting results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is exactly why you do not want to convince people to vote.
A low voter turn-out can be a very good thing if the turn-out is low because only people who have educated themselves on the issues at hand will go vote.
It is when the educated get apathetic enough to stop going to polls that we need to start worrying.
I admit that my attitude is at least slightly elitist but I would like to propose a system where people get extra votes based on some sort of a test or quiz that they can fill out that would test their IQ and their knowledge of relevant facts.
Now that would make interesting results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30408116</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260532620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority' in Congress, we remained the party of small, local government (our founding principles).</p></div></blockquote><p>The Republican Party was founded in 1854, and elected its first President in 1860. Given the most notable events of that first administration, I don't think the Republican Party's "founding principles" had much to do with "small, local government".</p><blockquote><div><p>It's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian "just generally leave us alone" original party platform.</p></div></blockquote><p>Please present a copy of the text of this "just generally leave us alone" original platform of the Republican Party. Because the earliest party platforms -- those of 1856 and 1860 -- I can find contains a call for building new infrastructure (a transcontinental railroad, river and harbor improvements, etc.) as a government priority, including a positive call for an expansive view of federal Constitutional authority to support that effort, and a call for strong federal regulation on certain contemporary areas of trade. Insofar as they contain "just generally leave us alone" provisions at all, they are in regard to the 1860 platforms declaration of the inviolability of State's rights to control its own domestic institutions, which certainly didn't seem to survive very long past 1860 as a core Republican principle.</p><blockquote><div><p>This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor' plan, and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan' that would have had Republicans even from the 70's and 80's going WTF?</p></div></blockquote><p>Given the similar expansion and spending of the Reagan years, I have trouble understanding that. Unless you are suggesting that the intervening decade would have caused Republicans from that time to forget the 1980s.</p><blockquote><div><p>FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers. Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!"?</p></div></blockquote><p>What does NAMBLA have to do with anything? I can't imagine <i>current</i> Democrats supporting NAMBLA any more than I can imagine 1960s Democrats doing so (well, except that 1960s Democrats -- like 1960s Republicans -- wouldn't have a choice, since NAMBLA didn't exist.)</p><p>A more <i>real</i> change in the Democratic Party since the 1960s was a result of the Civil Rights movement, which drove a wedge between the conservative (and often segregationist) wing of the party and the rest of the party, which was exploited by Republicans with Nixon's Southern strategy and subsequent efforts, over time turning the South from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority ' in Congress , we remained the party of small , local government ( our founding principles ) .The Republican Party was founded in 1854 , and elected its first President in 1860 .
Given the most notable events of that first administration , I do n't think the Republican Party 's " founding principles " had much to do with " small , local government " .It 's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian " just generally leave us alone " original party platform.Please present a copy of the text of this " just generally leave us alone " original platform of the Republican Party .
Because the earliest party platforms -- those of 1856 and 1860 -- I can find contains a call for building new infrastructure ( a transcontinental railroad , river and harbor improvements , etc .
) as a government priority , including a positive call for an expansive view of federal Constitutional authority to support that effort , and a call for strong federal regulation on certain contemporary areas of trade .
Insofar as they contain " just generally leave us alone " provisions at all , they are in regard to the 1860 platforms declaration of the inviolability of State 's rights to control its own domestic institutions , which certainly did n't seem to survive very long past 1860 as a core Republican principle.This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor ' plan , and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan ' that would have had Republicans even from the 70 's and 80 's going WTF ? Given the similar expansion and spending of the Reagan years , I have trouble understanding that .
Unless you are suggesting that the intervening decade would have caused Republicans from that time to forget the 1980s.FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers .
Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying " oh yeah , I 'll vote with them !
" ? What does NAMBLA have to do with anything ?
I ca n't imagine current Democrats supporting NAMBLA any more than I can imagine 1960s Democrats doing so ( well , except that 1960s Democrats -- like 1960s Republicans -- would n't have a choice , since NAMBLA did n't exist .
) A more real change in the Democratic Party since the 1960s was a result of the Civil Rights movement , which drove a wedge between the conservative ( and often segregationist ) wing of the party and the rest of the party , which was exploited by Republicans with Nixon 's Southern strategy and subsequent efforts , over time turning the South from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority' in Congress, we remained the party of small, local government (our founding principles).The Republican Party was founded in 1854, and elected its first President in 1860.
Given the most notable events of that first administration, I don't think the Republican Party's "founding principles" had much to do with "small, local government".It's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian "just generally leave us alone" original party platform.Please present a copy of the text of this "just generally leave us alone" original platform of the Republican Party.
Because the earliest party platforms -- those of 1856 and 1860 -- I can find contains a call for building new infrastructure (a transcontinental railroad, river and harbor improvements, etc.
) as a government priority, including a positive call for an expansive view of federal Constitutional authority to support that effort, and a call for strong federal regulation on certain contemporary areas of trade.
Insofar as they contain "just generally leave us alone" provisions at all, they are in regard to the 1860 platforms declaration of the inviolability of State's rights to control its own domestic institutions, which certainly didn't seem to survive very long past 1860 as a core Republican principle.This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor' plan, and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan' that would have had Republicans even from the 70's and 80's going WTF?Given the similar expansion and spending of the Reagan years, I have trouble understanding that.
Unless you are suggesting that the intervening decade would have caused Republicans from that time to forget the 1980s.FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers.
Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!
"?What does NAMBLA have to do with anything?
I can't imagine current Democrats supporting NAMBLA any more than I can imagine 1960s Democrats doing so (well, except that 1960s Democrats -- like 1960s Republicans -- wouldn't have a choice, since NAMBLA didn't exist.
)A more real change in the Democratic Party since the 1960s was a result of the Civil Rights movement, which drove a wedge between the conservative (and often segregationist) wing of the party and the rest of the party, which was exploited by Republicans with Nixon's Southern strategy and subsequent efforts, over time turning the South from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403140</id>
	<title>Re:They posted what was released</title>
	<author>divide overflow</author>
	<datestamp>1260552900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What he said.  Mod parent up for concise logic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What he said .
Mod parent up for concise logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he said.
Mod parent up for concise logic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403968</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!!</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1260555900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because "don't you see, it all changed after 9/11!". If I hear this one more time from a<br>"conservative" I might seriously consider cutting off my ears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because " do n't you see , it all changed after 9/11 ! " .
If I hear this one more time from a " conservative " I might seriously consider cutting off my ears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because "don't you see, it all changed after 9/11!".
If I hear this one more time from a"conservative" I might seriously consider cutting off my ears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30410130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30415872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30426422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30413908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30408116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30410216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30413868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30408350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1351208_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30410216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30426422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30415872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30413908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30413868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405766
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30410130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30406782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30408116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30404696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30405814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30403832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30407932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1351208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30402806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1351208.30408350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
