<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_20_2117230</id>
	<title>Holy See Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the Pope<span class="vballoon-marquee rd\_5"><span>Comments:</span><a href="#">447</a></span></title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261324440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader sends in news of what must be some kind of record in overreaching intellectual property claims: the Vatican has declared that <a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/holy\_see\_declares\_unique\_copyright\_on\_papal\_figure">the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope</a> are for exclusive use of the Holy See. They may have a point if, as the declaration hints, some have used "ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to attribute credibility and authority to initiatives" unrelated to the Vatican. But how much room will they allow for fair use? Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns? The royalty schedule was not released, so it's not clear how much Slashdot will have to pay to run this story (or if there will be a penalty for the accompanying pagan idol).</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader sends in news of what must be some kind of record in overreaching intellectual property claims : the Vatican has declared that the name , image , and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See .
They may have a point if , as the declaration hints , some have used " ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to attribute credibility and authority to initiatives " unrelated to the Vatican .
But how much room will they allow for fair use ?
Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns ?
The royalty schedule was not released , so it 's not clear how much Slashdot will have to pay to run this story ( or if there will be a penalty for the accompanying pagan idol ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader sends in news of what must be some kind of record in overreaching intellectual property claims: the Vatican has declared that the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See.
They may have a point if, as the declaration hints, some have used "ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to attribute credibility and authority to initiatives" unrelated to the Vatican.
But how much room will they allow for fair use?
Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?
The royalty schedule was not released, so it's not clear how much Slashdot will have to pay to run this story (or if there will be a penalty for the accompanying pagan idol).</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514338</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1261421580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Pope's argument would be, of course, that(while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question, among a large number of other things) he is God's authorized agent/distributor for this territory.</p></div><p>
[Examining Yellowbeard's treasure] <br>
El Nebuloso: Who is it more important to please: the King of Spain, or God? <br>
El Segundo: Why, God, of course. <br>
El Nebuloso: And who is God's personal representative in these parts? <br>
El Segundo: Why, you, your holy ruthlessness. <br>
El Nebuloso: Well, God wants to keep all of it. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pope 's argument would be , of course , that ( while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question , among a large number of other things ) he is God 's authorized agent/distributor for this territory .
[ Examining Yellowbeard 's treasure ] El Nebuloso : Who is it more important to please : the King of Spain , or God ?
El Segundo : Why , God , of course .
El Nebuloso : And who is God 's personal representative in these parts ?
El Segundo : Why , you , your holy ruthlessness .
El Nebuloso : Well , God wants to keep all of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pope's argument would be, of course, that(while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question, among a large number of other things) he is God's authorized agent/distributor for this territory.
[Examining Yellowbeard's treasure] 
El Nebuloso: Who is it more important to please: the King of Spain, or God?
El Segundo: Why, God, of course.
El Nebuloso: And who is God's personal representative in these parts?
El Segundo: Why, you, your holy ruthlessness.
El Nebuloso: Well, God wants to keep all of it. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512112</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although the Bible in its original form is certainly not under copyright, specific translations of it are.  If you can read Latin and (ancient) Greek, feel free to read the public domain originals.  There are plenty of translations that are not copyrighted, or which the copyright has expired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although the Bible in its original form is certainly not under copyright , specific translations of it are .
If you can read Latin and ( ancient ) Greek , feel free to read the public domain originals .
There are plenty of translations that are not copyrighted , or which the copyright has expired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although the Bible in its original form is certainly not under copyright, specific translations of it are.
If you can read Latin and (ancient) Greek, feel free to read the public domain originals.
There are plenty of translations that are not copyrighted, or which the copyright has expired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509476</id>
	<title>Some people may protest this</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1261336140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people may protest this.  They might even form a movement to protest it.  Now... if I could just think of a <em>name</em> for people who <em>protest</em> actions of the Catholic church... hmmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people may protest this .
They might even form a movement to protest it .
Now... if I could just think of a name for people who protest actions of the Catholic church... hmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people may protest this.
They might even form a movement to protest it.
Now... if I could just think of a name for people who protest actions of the Catholic church... hmmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510710</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting idea.</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1261398660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and tomorrow its the CRAA (Christian Religion Association of America) coming down hard on you for illegally uploading prayers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and tomorrow its the CRAA ( Christian Religion Association of America ) coming down hard on you for illegally uploading prayers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and tomorrow its the CRAA (Christian Religion Association of America) coming down hard on you for illegally uploading prayers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509338</id>
	<title>OB...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261333980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://sc.tri-bit.com/Pope\_Plz" title="tri-bit.com" rel="nofollow">http://sc.tri-bit.com/Pope\_Plz</a> [tri-bit.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //sc.tri-bit.com/Pope \ _Plz [ tri-bit.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://sc.tri-bit.com/Pope\_Plz [tri-bit.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509972</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible article</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1261387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican... So fae as I'm concerned they may even say computers are verbotten from now, I couldn't care less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican... So fae as I 'm concerned they may even say computers are verbotten from now , I could n't care less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican... So fae as I'm concerned they may even say computers are verbotten from now, I couldn't care less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510566</id>
	<title>Does this leave me open to legal action?</title>
	<author>desmogod</author>
	<datestamp>1261396800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/3125598008\_6e1055dcd2.jpg" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/3125598008\_6e1055dcd2.jpg</a> [flickr.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/3125598008 \ _6e1055dcd2.jpg [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/3125598008\_6e1055dcd2.jpg [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509586</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1261337820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches. Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are!</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book\_curse" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book\_curse</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>That's arguably the original copyright and Rights' Management.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that , with copyright as we know it today , Christianity would have died " in the womb .
" Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul 's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches .
Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted ( the way that the modern critical texts are !
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book \ _curse [ wikipedia.org ] That 's arguably the original copyright and Rights ' Management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb.
" Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.
Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book\_curse [wikipedia.org]That's arguably the original copyright and Rights' Management.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509152</id>
	<title>Doesn't surprise me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Vatican is run like a business and has done so since its inception. It is one of the richest entities in the world that is its own country, has its own army and has its own economy. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican\_city" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican\_city</a> [wikipedia.org].
<br> <br>
How in the heck can a religion do this? It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for: Peace, love, and helping people, not killing countless millions and building an empire in the name of God. What a bunch of hypocrites! It wouldn't surprise me that the Vatican will try and copyright (trademark, too) the name Vatican or even Jesus Christ one of these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vatican is run like a business and has done so since its inception .
It is one of the richest entities in the world that is its own country , has its own army and has its own economy .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican \ _city [ wikipedia.org ] .
How in the heck can a religion do this ?
It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for : Peace , love , and helping people , not killing countless millions and building an empire in the name of God .
What a bunch of hypocrites !
It would n't surprise me that the Vatican will try and copyright ( trademark , too ) the name Vatican or even Jesus Christ one of these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vatican is run like a business and has done so since its inception.
It is one of the richest entities in the world that is its own country, has its own army and has its own economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican\_city [wikipedia.org].
How in the heck can a religion do this?
It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for: Peace, love, and helping people, not killing countless millions and building an empire in the name of God.
What a bunch of hypocrites!
It wouldn't surprise me that the Vatican will try and copyright (trademark, too) the name Vatican or even Jesus Christ one of these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510820</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>dcmoebius</author>
	<datestamp>1261400040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wasn't implying that they didn't have the RIGHT to such a copyright/trademark, I was simply trying to point out the underlying problems with trying to enforce such a copyright claim.

Given the especially litigious atmosphere surrounding IP and copyright these days, it seems to me that the the Papacy may have invited trouble unnecessarily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't implying that they did n't have the RIGHT to such a copyright/trademark , I was simply trying to point out the underlying problems with trying to enforce such a copyright claim .
Given the especially litigious atmosphere surrounding IP and copyright these days , it seems to me that the the Papacy may have invited trouble unnecessarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't implying that they didn't have the RIGHT to such a copyright/trademark, I was simply trying to point out the underlying problems with trying to enforce such a copyright claim.
Given the especially litigious atmosphere surrounding IP and copyright these days, it seems to me that the the Papacy may have invited trouble unnecessarily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509914</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>AA Wulf</author>
	<datestamp>1261386780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one welcome our new copyright enforcing, DMCA-takedown-issuing, encyclical wielding, Papal overlord.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new copyright enforcing , DMCA-takedown-issuing , encyclical wielding , Papal overlord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new copyright enforcing, DMCA-takedown-issuing, encyclical wielding, Papal overlord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509062</id>
	<title>Why is enforcing legitimate copyrights news?</title>
	<author>turtleshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1261330560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this even news.<br>It seems a bit prejudiced on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  to bring up this story. What other news stories of real importance could have been voted up.</p><p>The Catholic Church had practices for the protection of seals and other insignia long before some countries were countries or some peoples learned the the rule of Western law.<br>1) Vatican is a sovereign state.<br>2) They have a permanent observer status at the United Nations.<br>3) The Vatican has been more or less willing to send amassadors (Nuncios) to every major Western Nation for the bulk of history.<br>4) The Vatican respects the legitimate rule of law (as per their moral system which is based on natural law and their Canon system) of other sovereign nations and peoples<br>5) Some 2.2 billion persons have a relationship to the Vatican</p><p>So next time try the litmus test where one inserts one's own race/creed/nation into the sentence and see if it sounds awkwardly prejudiced.<br>[United Kingdom] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Constitutional Monarchy]<br>[United States] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Presidency]<br>[China] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Premier of the State Council]<br>[Saudi Arabia] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [House of Saud]</p><p>Doesn't sound alarmist or noteworthy to me for the other ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this even news.It seems a bit prejudiced on / .
to bring up this story .
What other news stories of real importance could have been voted up.The Catholic Church had practices for the protection of seals and other insignia long before some countries were countries or some peoples learned the the rule of Western law.1 ) Vatican is a sovereign state.2 ) They have a permanent observer status at the United Nations.3 ) The Vatican has been more or less willing to send amassadors ( Nuncios ) to every major Western Nation for the bulk of history.4 ) The Vatican respects the legitimate rule of law ( as per their moral system which is based on natural law and their Canon system ) of other sovereign nations and peoples5 ) Some 2.2 billion persons have a relationship to the VaticanSo next time try the litmus test where one inserts one 's own race/creed/nation into the sentence and see if it sounds awkwardly prejudiced .
[ United Kingdom ] Declares a " Unique Copyright " On the [ Constitutional Monarchy ] [ United States ] Declares a " Unique Copyright " On the [ Presidency ] [ China ] Declares a " Unique Copyright " On the [ Premier of the State Council ] [ Saudi Arabia ] Declares a " Unique Copyright " On the [ House of Saud ] Does n't sound alarmist or noteworthy to me for the other ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this even news.It seems a bit prejudiced on /.
to bring up this story.
What other news stories of real importance could have been voted up.The Catholic Church had practices for the protection of seals and other insignia long before some countries were countries or some peoples learned the the rule of Western law.1) Vatican is a sovereign state.2) They have a permanent observer status at the United Nations.3) The Vatican has been more or less willing to send amassadors (Nuncios) to every major Western Nation for the bulk of history.4) The Vatican respects the legitimate rule of law (as per their moral system which is based on natural law and their Canon system) of other sovereign nations and peoples5) Some 2.2 billion persons have a relationship to the VaticanSo next time try the litmus test where one inserts one's own race/creed/nation into the sentence and see if it sounds awkwardly prejudiced.
[United Kingdom] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Constitutional Monarchy][United States] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Presidency][China] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Premier of the State Council][Saudi Arabia] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [House of Saud]Doesn't sound alarmist or noteworthy to me for the other ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511080</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1261404000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on)</p></div><p>Nope.<br>I'm not modding you down for that.<br>In fact, I'm giving you a chance to provide impartial evidence on that.<br>Go ahead, I'm waiting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( The funny part is , the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission , but that 's a whole other argument that I 'm sure I 'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on ) Nope.I 'm not modding you down for that.In fact , I 'm giving you a chance to provide impartial evidence on that.Go ahead , I 'm waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on)Nope.I'm not modding you down for that.In fact, I'm giving you a chance to provide impartial evidence on that.Go ahead, I'm waiting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30534326</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Rockin'Robert</author>
	<datestamp>1259762460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm. <br>
1. The Vatican is a recognised Nation (1 of 3 City States) with a seat in the UN (as in un-elected world government).<br>
2. As such, it is a public body and <br>
3. Said Vatican Inc, now claims commercial copyright on its bumph (with the CEO, Pope, anex- Hitler Youth German) and <br>
4. The definition of fascism is: The convergence of government and corporate interests. (There is no other plus the EU blueprint was conceived by the Nazis in the early 1940s), thus - <br>
5. Notwithstanding the separation of church and state issues - <br>
JOB'S DONE? <br>
Expos&#233;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
1. The Vatican is a recognised Nation ( 1 of 3 City States ) with a seat in the UN ( as in un-elected world government ) .
2. As such , it is a public body and 3 .
Said Vatican Inc , now claims commercial copyright on its bumph ( with the CEO , Pope , anex- Hitler Youth German ) and 4 .
The definition of fascism is : The convergence of government and corporate interests .
( There is no other plus the EU blueprint was conceived by the Nazis in the early 1940s ) , thus - 5 .
Notwithstanding the separation of church and state issues - JOB 'S DONE ?
Expos  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
1. The Vatican is a recognised Nation (1 of 3 City States) with a seat in the UN (as in un-elected world government).
2. As such, it is a public body and 
3.
Said Vatican Inc, now claims commercial copyright on its bumph (with the CEO, Pope, anex- Hitler Youth German) and 
4.
The definition of fascism is: The convergence of government and corporate interests.
(There is no other plus the EU blueprint was conceived by the Nazis in the early 1940s), thus - 
5.
Notwithstanding the separation of church and state issues - 
JOB'S DONE?
Exposé</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509766</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>pontifier</author>
	<datestamp>1261427700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not changing my screen name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not changing my screen name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not changing my screen name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509420</id>
	<title>Dare I say it...</title>
	<author>silentcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1261335180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"All your Pope are belong to us ?" - The Vatican.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" All your Pope are belong to us ?
" - The Vatican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All your Pope are belong to us ?
" - The Vatican.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30521990</id>
	<title>Thank you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261480080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, even if copyright law had existed back when the papacy started - it would have fallen in the public domain long ago. Aside from longevity, until now it has been used widely with legal copyright notice, and once something has fallen into the PD - it is forever in the PD.</p><p>Trademarking or Servicemarking is also a questionable proposition, since they have not been using appropriate notices: The Pope(TM)</p><p>Things like the pope hat, the cross, etc. have been in widespread common use for so long that they could no longer be protected.</p><p>What they might try is setting up a official franchise. Then they could sell licenses to operate a officially franchised '[unique name]-church (TM)'</p><p>Hey; if you want the protection enjoyed by a business, you have to run it like a business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , even if copyright law had existed back when the papacy started - it would have fallen in the public domain long ago .
Aside from longevity , until now it has been used widely with legal copyright notice , and once something has fallen into the PD - it is forever in the PD.Trademarking or Servicemarking is also a questionable proposition , since they have not been using appropriate notices : The Pope ( TM ) Things like the pope hat , the cross , etc .
have been in widespread common use for so long that they could no longer be protected.What they might try is setting up a official franchise .
Then they could sell licenses to operate a officially franchised ' [ unique name ] -church ( TM ) 'Hey ; if you want the protection enjoyed by a business , you have to run it like a business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, even if copyright law had existed back when the papacy started - it would have fallen in the public domain long ago.
Aside from longevity, until now it has been used widely with legal copyright notice, and once something has fallen into the PD - it is forever in the PD.Trademarking or Servicemarking is also a questionable proposition, since they have not been using appropriate notices: The Pope(TM)Things like the pope hat, the cross, etc.
have been in widespread common use for so long that they could no longer be protected.What they might try is setting up a official franchise.
Then they could sell licenses to operate a officially franchised '[unique name]-church (TM)'Hey; if you want the protection enjoyed by a business, you have to run it like a business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509124</id>
	<title>Re:they don't need copyright for this</title>
	<author>greenreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1261331280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just registering a trademark in the US is an expensive nine-month hassle (or more), and it's one of the easiest and cheapest places to do so in the world. At least Europe now has a way - well <i>two</i> ways - of registering a Europe-wide trademark, as long as nobody in any of the 27 member states complains. As Michael says, good luck with the rest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just registering a trademark in the US is an expensive nine-month hassle ( or more ) , and it 's one of the easiest and cheapest places to do so in the world .
At least Europe now has a way - well two ways - of registering a Europe-wide trademark , as long as nobody in any of the 27 member states complains .
As Michael says , good luck with the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just registering a trademark in the US is an expensive nine-month hassle (or more), and it's one of the easiest and cheapest places to do so in the world.
At least Europe now has a way - well two ways - of registering a Europe-wide trademark, as long as nobody in any of the 27 member states complains.
As Michael says, good luck with the rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509544</id>
	<title>I hope the copy right and patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261337160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>child rape</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>child rape</tokentext>
<sentencetext>child rape</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510796</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't surprise me</title>
	<author>aug24</author>
	<datestamp>1261399800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for
</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Luckily, it's the Vatican who defines that, for the fictional version.
</p><p>
I personally suspect that the real dude stood for the liberation of Palestine from (ironically) Rome, and him and his being in charge of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for Luckily , it 's the Vatican who defines that , for the fictional version .
I personally suspect that the real dude stood for the liberation of Palestine from ( ironically ) Rome , and him and his being in charge of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for
 
Luckily, it's the Vatican who defines that, for the fictional version.
I personally suspect that the real dude stood for the liberation of Palestine from (ironically) Rome, and him and his being in charge of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</id>
	<title>Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>thebiss</author>
	<datestamp>1261328580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...who have found using IP an effective way to manage criticism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...who have found using IP an effective way to manage criticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...who have found using IP an effective way to manage criticism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509010</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's forcing you to give money?  Or is asking for donations to keep something free going bad?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's forcing you to give money ?
Or is asking for donations to keep something free going bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's forcing you to give money?
Or is asking for donations to keep something free going bad?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509554</id>
	<title>Registered by "God"?</title>
	<author>N0Man74</author>
	<datestamp>1261337340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And will this "Unique Copyright" be registered by God, protected by Lifetime + 70 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And will this " Unique Copyright " be registered by God , protected by Lifetime + 70 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And will this "Unique Copyright" be registered by God, protected by Lifetime + 70 years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30520480</id>
	<title>Re:Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1261417140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." -- Mark Twain</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool .
" -- Mark Twain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.
" -- Mark Twain</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509020</id>
	<title>they don't need copyright for this</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1261330080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>All they need to do is register their symbols, images, etc as trademarks in every country of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All they need to do is register their symbols , images , etc as trademarks in every country of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they need to do is register their symbols, images, etc as trademarks in every country of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509724</id>
	<title>The Pope and Mickey Mouse</title>
	<author>Samarian Hillbilly</author>
	<datestamp>1261426800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...only Mickey Mouse has better enforcement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...only Mickey Mouse has better enforcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...only Mickey Mouse has better enforcement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508888</id>
	<title>Now we have a problem</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1261329000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>the Vatican has declared that the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See.</i>
</p><p>
I searched<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. usernames, and there are quite a few that claim to be Pope this or that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Vatican has declared that the name , image , and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See .
I searched / .
usernames , and there are quite a few that claim to be Pope this or that : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the Vatican has declared that the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See.
I searched /.
usernames, and there are quite a few that claim to be Pope this or that :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508874</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1261328820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Pope [tm] can suck my dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pope [ tm ] can suck my dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pope [tm] can suck my dick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512936</id>
	<title>High School</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1261415460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?</p></div> </blockquote><p>WTF?
What  kind of schools do you have in America?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns ?
WTF ? What kind of schools do you have in America ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?
WTF?
What  kind of schools do you have in America?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509416</id>
	<title>Re:Scope</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261335180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roughly: however many people who later become IP lawyers were also born in catholic family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roughly : however many people who later become IP lawyers were also born in catholic family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roughly: however many people who later become IP lawyers were also born in catholic family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509040</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Pope's argument would be, of course, that(while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question, among a large number of other things) he is God's authorized agent/distributor for this territory.<br> <br>

Since this seems like the best excuse for doing so that I've yet had, I include the "software licensing analogy for distinguishing between Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism" below:<br> <br>

Judaism is a corporate site licence: All members of the organization are automatically entitled to software under the terms of a legal agreement between the organization and the software producer.<br> <br>

Catholicism is per-seat licensing from a value-added reseller: The church has an agreement with the software producer, under which its sales reps entitled to sell the software, along with a suite of helper utilities and documentation supplements, and the support of its field techs, to any interested individuals.<br> <br>

Protestantism is retail shrinkwrap software: The individual buyer enters into a contractual relationship with the software producer, without intermediaries. All that the buyer receives is the software and the packaged manual(sola scriptura). <br> <br>

Addendum: Quakers are FOSS: Individuals get together communally, and anybody who the spirit so moves can get up and code something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pope 's argument would be , of course , that ( while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question , among a large number of other things ) he is God 's authorized agent/distributor for this territory .
Since this seems like the best excuse for doing so that I 've yet had , I include the " software licensing analogy for distinguishing between Judaism , Catholicism , and Protestantism " below : Judaism is a corporate site licence : All members of the organization are automatically entitled to software under the terms of a legal agreement between the organization and the software producer .
Catholicism is per-seat licensing from a value-added reseller : The church has an agreement with the software producer , under which its sales reps entitled to sell the software , along with a suite of helper utilities and documentation supplements , and the support of its field techs , to any interested individuals .
Protestantism is retail shrinkwrap software : The individual buyer enters into a contractual relationship with the software producer , without intermediaries .
All that the buyer receives is the software and the packaged manual ( sola scriptura ) .
Addendum : Quakers are FOSS : Individuals get together communally , and anybody who the spirit so moves can get up and code something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pope's argument would be, of course, that(while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question, among a large number of other things) he is God's authorized agent/distributor for this territory.
Since this seems like the best excuse for doing so that I've yet had, I include the "software licensing analogy for distinguishing between Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism" below: 

Judaism is a corporate site licence: All members of the organization are automatically entitled to software under the terms of a legal agreement between the organization and the software producer.
Catholicism is per-seat licensing from a value-added reseller: The church has an agreement with the software producer, under which its sales reps entitled to sell the software, along with a suite of helper utilities and documentation supplements, and the support of its field techs, to any interested individuals.
Protestantism is retail shrinkwrap software: The individual buyer enters into a contractual relationship with the software producer, without intermediaries.
All that the buyer receives is the software and the packaged manual(sola scriptura).
Addendum: Quakers are FOSS: Individuals get together communally, and anybody who the spirit so moves can get up and code something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509484</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>Credible</author>
	<datestamp>1261336200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb.</p></div><p>This is the first time anyone has ever managed to convince me that there are some positives to modern copyright law</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that , with copyright as we know it today , Christianity would have died " in the womb.This is the first time anyone has ever managed to convince me that there are some positives to modern copyright law</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb.This is the first time anyone has ever managed to convince me that there are some positives to modern copyright law
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514696</id>
	<title>False Popes</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1261423200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will finally put an end to these cheap popes imported from China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will finally put an end to these cheap popes imported from China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will finally put an end to these cheap popes imported from China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509348</id>
	<title>Okay, fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please replace all references to the trademarked "Pope" with "Old Guy In The Funny Hat".

Now that's better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please replace all references to the trademarked " Pope " with " Old Guy In The Funny Hat " .
Now that 's better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please replace all references to the trademarked "Pope" with "Old Guy In The Funny Hat".
Now that's better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511014</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1261402860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That assumes that St Paul would have asserted his copyright in a way that prevented copying. I think he would probably have used a creative commons license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That assumes that St Paul would have asserted his copyright in a way that prevented copying .
I think he would probably have used a creative commons license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That assumes that St Paul would have asserted his copyright in a way that prevented copying.
I think he would probably have used a creative commons license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509230</id>
	<title>Saint IGNUcius</title>
	<author>BobNET</author>
	<datestamp>1261332540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://stallman.org/saint.html" title="stallman.org">This guy</a> [stallman.org] already came up with a "unique copyright" some time ago...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy [ stallman.org ] already came up with a " unique copyright " some time ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy [stallman.org] already came up with a "unique copyright" some time ago...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509106</id>
	<title>Legit use</title>
	<author>bjackson1</author>
	<datestamp>1261331040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess is that if it's ever used it be against idiots like:</p><p>'Pope' Pius XIII<br><a href="http://www.truecatholic.us/" title="truecatholic.us">http://www.truecatholic.us/</a> [truecatholic.us]</p><p>or other people who set themselves up as the pope... Just a guess though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that if it 's ever used it be against idiots like : 'Pope ' Pius XIIIhttp : //www.truecatholic.us/ [ truecatholic.us ] or other people who set themselves up as the pope... Just a guess though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that if it's ever used it be against idiots like:'Pope' Pius XIIIhttp://www.truecatholic.us/ [truecatholic.us]or other people who set themselves up as the pope... Just a guess though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509900</id>
	<title>Re:Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1261386660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really, unless you're saying Mozilla protecting its logo is the same as Dianetics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , unless you 're saying Mozilla protecting its logo is the same as Dianetics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, unless you're saying Mozilla protecting its logo is the same as Dianetics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509582</id>
	<title>Vicar of Christ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261337700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the pontifus maximus (or "the pope") is indeed the vicar of christ, I wonder what Yeshua the messiah ("Jesus Christ") thinks of copyrighting the message of the gospel and anything related to it.</p><p>What was it he said, oh, yes, go forth and spread the good news. He never once said "spread the good news, but only these romans and jews, not those blacks or anglo-saxons" nor did he ever say to otherwise restrict spreading of the good news in any way, shape, or form.</p><p>If one is a Christian (be it Catholic, Baptist, protestant, messianic jew) one really has to question what the heck the goal of the pope is, if that pope is trying to restrict the message or trying to claim ownership of anything even tangentally related to it.One might even think that the goal of the vatican is the lust of money and power, and not actually 'saving' people from 'hell' (or really, from the 'lake of fire' since 'hell' merely refers to the grave, if you refer to the original Hebrew and Greek).</p><p>The Vatican might try to claim that exclusivity of the word, related symbols, etc. is required in order to validate the authenticity of the material, but what did Christ himself say about that? He said that his people are known by their love for one another. Never once did he mention a pontifus maximus, a fish-head hat, or any roman-era symbols.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the pontifus maximus ( or " the pope " ) is indeed the vicar of christ , I wonder what Yeshua the messiah ( " Jesus Christ " ) thinks of copyrighting the message of the gospel and anything related to it.What was it he said , oh , yes , go forth and spread the good news .
He never once said " spread the good news , but only these romans and jews , not those blacks or anglo-saxons " nor did he ever say to otherwise restrict spreading of the good news in any way , shape , or form.If one is a Christian ( be it Catholic , Baptist , protestant , messianic jew ) one really has to question what the heck the goal of the pope is , if that pope is trying to restrict the message or trying to claim ownership of anything even tangentally related to it.One might even think that the goal of the vatican is the lust of money and power , and not actually 'saving ' people from 'hell ' ( or really , from the 'lake of fire ' since 'hell ' merely refers to the grave , if you refer to the original Hebrew and Greek ) .The Vatican might try to claim that exclusivity of the word , related symbols , etc .
is required in order to validate the authenticity of the material , but what did Christ himself say about that ?
He said that his people are known by their love for one another .
Never once did he mention a pontifus maximus , a fish-head hat , or any roman-era symbols .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the pontifus maximus (or "the pope") is indeed the vicar of christ, I wonder what Yeshua the messiah ("Jesus Christ") thinks of copyrighting the message of the gospel and anything related to it.What was it he said, oh, yes, go forth and spread the good news.
He never once said "spread the good news, but only these romans and jews, not those blacks or anglo-saxons" nor did he ever say to otherwise restrict spreading of the good news in any way, shape, or form.If one is a Christian (be it Catholic, Baptist, protestant, messianic jew) one really has to question what the heck the goal of the pope is, if that pope is trying to restrict the message or trying to claim ownership of anything even tangentally related to it.One might even think that the goal of the vatican is the lust of money and power, and not actually 'saving' people from 'hell' (or really, from the 'lake of fire' since 'hell' merely refers to the grave, if you refer to the original Hebrew and Greek).The Vatican might try to claim that exclusivity of the word, related symbols, etc.
is required in order to validate the authenticity of the material, but what did Christ himself say about that?
He said that his people are known by their love for one another.
Never once did he mention a pontifus maximus, a fish-head hat, or any roman-era symbols.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512610</id>
	<title>Just a pre-emptive measure</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1261413960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They witnessed Microsoft's attempt to edge in on <a href="http://bing.biz/" title="bing.biz">Bing!</a> [bing.biz] and <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/05/software\_company\_beats\_m/" title="theregister.co.uk">xBox</a> [theregister.co.uk] and wanted to insure themselves from Office Papal edition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They witnessed Microsoft 's attempt to edge in on Bing !
[ bing.biz ] and xBox [ theregister.co.uk ] and wanted to insure themselves from Office Papal edition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They witnessed Microsoft's attempt to edge in on Bing!
[bing.biz] and xBox [theregister.co.uk] and wanted to insure themselves from Office Papal edition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509924</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1261386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you read Acts?  I'm an atheist, but I know that the Apostles were setting up a religion under the Creative Commons license</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you read Acts ?
I 'm an atheist , but I know that the Apostles were setting up a religion under the Creative Commons license</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you read Acts?
I'm an atheist, but I know that the Apostles were setting up a religion under the Creative Commons license</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509196</id>
	<title>Brand management</title>
	<author>md65536</author>
	<datestamp>1261332060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vatican marketing released this statement shortly afterward:</p><p>"Only real Vatican Pope has that real Pope flavor!  If you are purchasing Poap brand or generic pope products from other non-holy sees, you may be getting only as little as 60\% actual pope -- The rest is filler.  Don't be fooled by packaging that boasts 'Papalaty flavor".  If it doesn't have the official Pope logo on it, it's not genuine Pope inside.</p><p>Choose Vatican Pope for all your papal needs."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vatican marketing released this statement shortly afterward : " Only real Vatican Pope has that real Pope flavor !
If you are purchasing Poap brand or generic pope products from other non-holy sees , you may be getting only as little as 60 \ % actual pope -- The rest is filler .
Do n't be fooled by packaging that boasts 'Papalaty flavor " .
If it does n't have the official Pope logo on it , it 's not genuine Pope inside.Choose Vatican Pope for all your papal needs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vatican marketing released this statement shortly afterward:"Only real Vatican Pope has that real Pope flavor!
If you are purchasing Poap brand or generic pope products from other non-holy sees, you may be getting only as little as 60\% actual pope -- The rest is filler.
Don't be fooled by packaging that boasts 'Papalaty flavor".
If it doesn't have the official Pope logo on it, it's not genuine Pope inside.Choose Vatican Pope for all your papal needs.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510572</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261396920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since God is omniscient, can I sue the pope for privacy infringement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since God is omniscient , can I sue the pope for privacy infringement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since God is omniscient, can I sue the pope for privacy infringement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512334</id>
	<title>Re:no big deal</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1261412580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.</p></div></blockquote><p>So does that mean that the Catholic Church is a trade?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't been able to find the actual Vatican statement , but as the news accounts describe it , it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.So does that mean that the Catholic Church is a trade ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.So does that mean that the Catholic Church is a trade?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510012</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>k.a.f.</author>
	<datestamp>1261388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ridiculous nonsense. If present-day legislation had been active then, the very first thing that Paul would have done is to attach a the local equivalent of a creative commons license to his epistles. "Evangelizing" means "getting the good news out", after all. Give people some credit for brains!
<p>
There a lots and lots of smart arguments against the current mess. Don't use stupid ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ridiculous nonsense .
If present-day legislation had been active then , the very first thing that Paul would have done is to attach a the local equivalent of a creative commons license to his epistles .
" Evangelizing " means " getting the good news out " , after all .
Give people some credit for brains !
There a lots and lots of smart arguments against the current mess .
Do n't use stupid ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ridiculous nonsense.
If present-day legislation had been active then, the very first thing that Paul would have done is to attach a the local equivalent of a creative commons license to his epistles.
"Evangelizing" means "getting the good news out", after all.
Give people some credit for brains!
There a lots and lots of smart arguments against the current mess.
Don't use stupid ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30520354</id>
	<title>It has begun</title>
	<author>winsomecowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261415760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
No more 'Pope on a rope', says the Vatican

<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6964554.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6964554.ece</a> [timesonline.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No more 'Pope on a rope ' , says the Vatican http : //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6964554.ece [ timesonline.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No more 'Pope on a rope', says the Vatican

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6964554.ece [timesonline.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</id>
	<title>With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1261330080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb."  Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.  Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are!  I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.)  Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith, and I'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course, here I am a Baptist whose theological 40\% evangelical, 30\% Anbaptist, and 30\% Eastern Orthodox, so maybe that's not surprising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that , with copyright as we know it today , Christianity would have died " in the womb .
" Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul 's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches .
Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted ( the way that the modern critical texts are !
I still do n't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted .
) Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith , and I 'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course , here I am a Baptist whose theological 40 \ % evangelical , 30 \ % Anbaptist , and 30 \ % Eastern Orthodox , so maybe that 's not surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb.
"  Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.
Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are!
I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.
)  Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith, and I'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course, here I am a Baptist whose theological 40\% evangelical, 30\% Anbaptist, and 30\% Eastern Orthodox, so maybe that's not surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509002</id>
	<title>How about this?</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1261329900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/6/6b/SpacePope.png" title="wikia.com">http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/6/6b/SpacePope.png</a> [wikia.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/6/6b/SpacePope.png [ wikia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/6/6b/SpacePope.png [wikia.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509364</id>
	<title>Re:Legit use</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1261334340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is that different than the Great Schism?</p><p>(I was raised Catholic)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that different than the Great Schism ?
( I was raised Catholic )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that different than the Great Schism?
(I was raised Catholic)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508856</id>
	<title>Real Intent</title>
	<author>philcheesesteak</author>
	<datestamp>1261328700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure the Vatican would like to limit negative portrayals of the Pope, regardless of the rationale given in TFA</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the Vatican would like to limit negative portrayals of the Pope , regardless of the rationale given in TFA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the Vatican would like to limit negative portrayals of the Pope, regardless of the rationale given in TFA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512724</id>
	<title>This is about trademark, not copyright.</title>
	<author>kfogel</author>
	<datestamp>1261414620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter what word the Vatican used, this is fundamentally about trademarks, not copyrights.</p><p>Trademarks are about identity: they prevent impersonation.  Identity protection is exactly the Vatican's concern here.  They don't want other groups pretending to be the Catholic Church.  (There remain interesting questions as to who has the right to decide what the Catholic Church is, as with any religion or other affinity group, but that's an inherent property of identity itself.)</p><p>This case is <em>not</em> about copyright, in any case, since copyright isn't about identity.  When people illegally share music, for example, they don't remove the original artist's name and replace it with their own.  Copyright is not about credit or attribution; it's about the sharing itself.  That's why it's called "copyright" instead of "creditright".</p><p>Lumping these two unrelated concepts together under the term "intellectual property" just leads to confusion.  And the copyright lobby is very happy to benefit from this confusion, since people have a strong moral attachment to accurate crediting.  For example, see <a href="http://questioncopyright.org/promise#plagiarism-vs-copying" title="questioncopyright.org">http://questioncopyright.org/promise#plagiarism-vs-copying</a> [questioncopyright.org] for a blatant example of the RIAA trying to confuse copyright violation with plagiarism -- that is, confuse unauthorized sharing with identity theft.</p><p>Now, if the Vatican were claiming a monopoly right on the Bible, <em>that</em> would be a copyright issue.  But they're not, of course, because the Bible is in the public domain everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what word the Vatican used , this is fundamentally about trademarks , not copyrights.Trademarks are about identity : they prevent impersonation .
Identity protection is exactly the Vatican 's concern here .
They do n't want other groups pretending to be the Catholic Church .
( There remain interesting questions as to who has the right to decide what the Catholic Church is , as with any religion or other affinity group , but that 's an inherent property of identity itself .
) This case is not about copyright , in any case , since copyright is n't about identity .
When people illegally share music , for example , they do n't remove the original artist 's name and replace it with their own .
Copyright is not about credit or attribution ; it 's about the sharing itself .
That 's why it 's called " copyright " instead of " creditright " .Lumping these two unrelated concepts together under the term " intellectual property " just leads to confusion .
And the copyright lobby is very happy to benefit from this confusion , since people have a strong moral attachment to accurate crediting .
For example , see http : //questioncopyright.org/promise # plagiarism-vs-copying [ questioncopyright.org ] for a blatant example of the RIAA trying to confuse copyright violation with plagiarism -- that is , confuse unauthorized sharing with identity theft.Now , if the Vatican were claiming a monopoly right on the Bible , that would be a copyright issue .
But they 're not , of course , because the Bible is in the public domain everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what word the Vatican used, this is fundamentally about trademarks, not copyrights.Trademarks are about identity: they prevent impersonation.
Identity protection is exactly the Vatican's concern here.
They don't want other groups pretending to be the Catholic Church.
(There remain interesting questions as to who has the right to decide what the Catholic Church is, as with any religion or other affinity group, but that's an inherent property of identity itself.
)This case is not about copyright, in any case, since copyright isn't about identity.
When people illegally share music, for example, they don't remove the original artist's name and replace it with their own.
Copyright is not about credit or attribution; it's about the sharing itself.
That's why it's called "copyright" instead of "creditright".Lumping these two unrelated concepts together under the term "intellectual property" just leads to confusion.
And the copyright lobby is very happy to benefit from this confusion, since people have a strong moral attachment to accurate crediting.
For example, see http://questioncopyright.org/promise#plagiarism-vs-copying [questioncopyright.org] for a blatant example of the RIAA trying to confuse copyright violation with plagiarism -- that is, confuse unauthorized sharing with identity theft.Now, if the Vatican were claiming a monopoly right on the Bible, that would be a copyright issue.
But they're not, of course, because the Bible is in the public domain everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509958</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't TM good enough?</title>
	<author>MPolo</author>
	<datestamp>1261387500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strictly speaking, the Vatican didn't claim Copyright or Trademark, but ownership of the names and images.</p><p>I think that the point of this is connected with Catholic schools and churches taking names like "Pope John Paul the Great", before Pope John Paul II is even declared a saint, much less having stood the test of time to earn the title "Great". Or organizations that oppose the Catholic Church, but claim the patronage of a pope, like the hypothetical "Blessed John XXIII Society for the Abolition of Liturgy". They are just instructing the bishops to be careful what permissions they give. I doubt this declaration will have any effect at all outside of the Catholic Church.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strictly speaking , the Vatican did n't claim Copyright or Trademark , but ownership of the names and images.I think that the point of this is connected with Catholic schools and churches taking names like " Pope John Paul the Great " , before Pope John Paul II is even declared a saint , much less having stood the test of time to earn the title " Great " .
Or organizations that oppose the Catholic Church , but claim the patronage of a pope , like the hypothetical " Blessed John XXIII Society for the Abolition of Liturgy " .
They are just instructing the bishops to be careful what permissions they give .
I doubt this declaration will have any effect at all outside of the Catholic Church .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strictly speaking, the Vatican didn't claim Copyright or Trademark, but ownership of the names and images.I think that the point of this is connected with Catholic schools and churches taking names like "Pope John Paul the Great", before Pope John Paul II is even declared a saint, much less having stood the test of time to earn the title "Great".
Or organizations that oppose the Catholic Church, but claim the patronage of a pope, like the hypothetical "Blessed John XXIII Society for the Abolition of Liturgy".
They are just instructing the bishops to be careful what permissions they give.
I doubt this declaration will have any effect at all outside of the Catholic Church.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512104</id>
	<title>Isn't it a major shame</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1261411080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that they already exterminated most religions where they got the mustard ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>that they already exterminated most religions where they got the mustard ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that they already exterminated most religions where they got the mustard ?
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512276</id>
	<title>Re:Applicability and Scope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or Black Velvet Elvis paintings!</p><p>Gone! All GONE!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or Black Velvet Elvis paintings ! Gone !
All GONE ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or Black Velvet Elvis paintings!Gone!
All GONE!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509374</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261334640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"heading down"?...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" heading down " ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"heading down"?...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512114</id>
	<title>It's pretty clear what they're doing</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1261411200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're trying to avoid another incident of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon\_Papacy" title="wikipedia.org">"Pope, Antipope"</a> [wikipedia.org] by enforcing the non-copying of the Pope with the international equivalent of the DMCA.</p><p>No cloning His Holiness! DMCA Takedown for you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're trying to avoid another incident of " Pope , Antipope " [ wikipedia.org ] by enforcing the non-copying of the Pope with the international equivalent of the DMCA.No cloning His Holiness !
DMCA Takedown for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're trying to avoid another incident of "Pope, Antipope" [wikipedia.org] by enforcing the non-copying of the Pope with the international equivalent of the DMCA.No cloning His Holiness!
DMCA Takedown for you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509888</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't surprise me</title>
	<author>Seraphim\_72</author>
	<datestamp>1261386540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hyperventilate much?<br> <br>

Per your link
<ul>
<li>It had revenues of ~380 million last year. Bill Gates made that brushing his teeth last month. </li><li>Sure it has a military - on loan from a neutral country. They aren't going to be invading anyone any time soon.</li><li>Yes it has it's own economy - so does Sioux Falls South Dakota. Whoopee!</li></ul><p>

In fact if you want to run the numbers there is about 2 billion flowing through Souix Falls South Dakota in a year. And they have a larger military footprint.<br> <br>OMG! How in the heck can a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...erm... Dakota do this? <br> <br>Stop being offended because it has a cross on it. You are becoming the thing you purport to hate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hyperventilate much ?
Per your link It had revenues of ~ 380 million last year .
Bill Gates made that brushing his teeth last month .
Sure it has a military - on loan from a neutral country .
They are n't going to be invading anyone any time soon.Yes it has it 's own economy - so does Sioux Falls South Dakota .
Whoopee ! In fact if you want to run the numbers there is about 2 billion flowing through Souix Falls South Dakota in a year .
And they have a larger military footprint .
OMG ! How in the heck can a ...erm... Dakota do this ?
Stop being offended because it has a cross on it .
You are becoming the thing you purport to hate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hyperventilate much?
Per your link

It had revenues of ~380 million last year.
Bill Gates made that brushing his teeth last month.
Sure it has a military - on loan from a neutral country.
They aren't going to be invading anyone any time soon.Yes it has it's own economy - so does Sioux Falls South Dakota.
Whoopee!

In fact if you want to run the numbers there is about 2 billion flowing through Souix Falls South Dakota in a year.
And they have a larger military footprint.
OMG! How in the heck can a ...erm... Dakota do this?
Stop being offended because it has a cross on it.
You are becoming the thing you purport to hate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509540</id>
	<title>All hail</title>
	<author>Ceriel Nosforit</author>
	<datestamp>1261337100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an ordained Pope of Discordia, I hereby excommunicate this Vatican fellow from all the realms. That'll shut him up. Haha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an ordained Pope of Discordia , I hereby excommunicate this Vatican fellow from all the realms .
That 'll shut him up .
Haha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an ordained Pope of Discordia, I hereby excommunicate this Vatican fellow from all the realms.
That'll shut him up.
Haha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30515622</id>
	<title>Re:Applicability and Scope</title>
	<author>ImprovOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1261427220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say disparage is probably the word you're looking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say disparage is probably the word you 're looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say disparage is probably the word you're looking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511160</id>
	<title>Re:Scope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261404840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One but he is many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One but he is many ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One but he is many ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514602</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1261422720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why would Paul have denied that permission, even if he had the legal right to do so?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that , with copyright as we know it today , Christianity would have died " in the womb .
" Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul 's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.Why would Paul have denied that permission , even if he had the legal right to do so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb.
" Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.Why would Paul have denied that permission, even if he had the legal right to do so?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509130</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>stonewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1261331340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who do they think they are, god?</p><p>Stonewolf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who do they think they are , god ? Stonewolf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who do they think they are, god?Stonewolf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509044</id>
	<title>Power Mad Papa</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1261330320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that it's a good idea for a church to be able to assert a copyright monopoly over ANY aspect of religious doctrine.</p><p>If such nonsense were lawful, the Church could bring a lawsuit against schismatics for copyright infringement.  That would infringe the right of schismatics to split from the church and form their own church.</p><p>One more VERY GOOD REMINDER why we need to separate church and state!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that it 's a good idea for a church to be able to assert a copyright monopoly over ANY aspect of religious doctrine.If such nonsense were lawful , the Church could bring a lawsuit against schismatics for copyright infringement .
That would infringe the right of schismatics to split from the church and form their own church.One more VERY GOOD REMINDER why we need to separate church and state !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that it's a good idea for a church to be able to assert a copyright monopoly over ANY aspect of religious doctrine.If such nonsense were lawful, the Church could bring a lawsuit against schismatics for copyright infringement.
That would infringe the right of schismatics to split from the church and form their own church.One more VERY GOOD REMINDER why we need to separate church and state!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509550</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261337220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb."</p> </div><p>Well that's *one* good thing about modern copyright laws then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that , with copyright as we know it today , Christianity would have died " in the womb .
" Well that 's * one * good thing about modern copyright laws then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb.
" Well that's *one* good thing about modern copyright laws then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509030</id>
	<title>Again?!</title>
	<author>Snowdrake</author>
	<datestamp>1261330200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/16/2214208/Former-Congressman-Learns-About-Streisand-Effect" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">That trick never works!</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That trick never works !
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That trick never works!
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509998</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1261388040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, of course, early Christians would have faced a choice of whether to profit from bible sales, or to increase distribution by allowing sharing.</p><blockquote><div><p>Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith</p></div></blockquote><p>How? Does Christianity somehow rely on the distribution of other people's works without their consent?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , of course , early Christians would have faced a choice of whether to profit from bible sales , or to increase distribution by allowing sharing.Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faithHow ?
Does Christianity somehow rely on the distribution of other people 's works without their consent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, of course, early Christians would have faced a choice of whether to profit from bible sales, or to increase distribution by allowing sharing.Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faithHow?
Does Christianity somehow rely on the distribution of other people's works without their consent?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804</id>
	<title>This definitely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>won't have ANY negative ramifications...</htmltext>
<tokenext>wo n't have ANY negative ramifications.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>won't have ANY negative ramifications...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509504</id>
	<title>Our three weapons are...</title>
	<author>funwithBSD</author>
	<datestamp>1261336380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fear, ruthlessness, and a trademark infringement takedown letter!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fear , ruthlessness , and a trademark infringement takedown letter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fear, ruthlessness, and a trademark infringement takedown letter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509916</id>
	<title>That's ok, we'll make our own...</title>
	<author>rcasha2</author>
	<datestamp>1261386840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well since we can no longer use "the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope", the sensible solution would be for the rest of the world to make up a new name, image and symbol for use when referring to the person formerly known as Pope. The competition for the new name, image and symbol will remain open until end December 2009, and the winner will get free permission to visit the city-state formerly known as Vatican. All entries must be open sourced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well since we can no longer use " the name , image , and any symbols of the Pope " , the sensible solution would be for the rest of the world to make up a new name , image and symbol for use when referring to the person formerly known as Pope .
The competition for the new name , image and symbol will remain open until end December 2009 , and the winner will get free permission to visit the city-state formerly known as Vatican .
All entries must be open sourced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well since we can no longer use "the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope", the sensible solution would be for the rest of the world to make up a new name, image and symbol for use when referring to the person formerly known as Pope.
The competition for the new name, image and symbol will remain open until end December 2009, and the winner will get free permission to visit the city-state formerly known as Vatican.
All entries must be open sourced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508870</id>
	<title>Fine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then I'm going to file a patent on the process of performing miracles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I 'm going to file a patent on the process of performing miracles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I'm going to file a patent on the process of performing miracles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511072</id>
	<title>Another big example</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1261403880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are other examples of specific reserved copyrights being granted through law. One big example is Peter Pan. This is specifically protected under UK law and will never expire (so long as the law lasts). All royalties from Peter Pan related items goes directly to Great Ormond Street children's Hospital.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other examples of specific reserved copyrights being granted through law .
One big example is Peter Pan .
This is specifically protected under UK law and will never expire ( so long as the law lasts ) .
All royalties from Peter Pan related items goes directly to Great Ormond Street children 's Hospital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other examples of specific reserved copyrights being granted through law.
One big example is Peter Pan.
This is specifically protected under UK law and will never expire (so long as the law lasts).
All royalties from Peter Pan related items goes directly to Great Ormond Street children's Hospital.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509598</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting idea.</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1261337940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, God has made himself illegal."</p><p>Thank youuuuu!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , God has made himself illegal .
" Thank youuuuu !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, God has made himself illegal.
"Thank youuuuu!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510220</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1261392120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that Catholics wrote the Bible in the first place, and decided which texts were canonical and which were not, I'd say it's been written to suit them from Day 1.  That you're dumb enough to think the day 1 version is any better than the day 584000 version is your problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that Catholics wrote the Bible in the first place , and decided which texts were canonical and which were not , I 'd say it 's been written to suit them from Day 1 .
That you 're dumb enough to think the day 1 version is any better than the day 584000 version is your problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that Catholics wrote the Bible in the first place, and decided which texts were canonical and which were not, I'd say it's been written to suit them from Day 1.
That you're dumb enough to think the day 1 version is any better than the day 584000 version is your problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509412</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1261335120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively.</p> </div><p>NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively .
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively.
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509008</id>
	<title>Get the checkbook out !</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1261329960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... with so many slashtards,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. will not qualify for the normal "news" exemption on images and stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... with so many slashtards , / .
will not qualify for the normal " news " exemption on images and stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... with so many slashtards, /.
will not qualify for the normal "news" exemption on images and stories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1261426980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, yeah.</p><p>(Disclaimer: Catholic guy here. Take that as you will)</p><p>1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an <i> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imprimatur" title="reference.com">imprimatur</a> [reference.com] </i> (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).</p><p>2) They've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so, and the office for roughly 1973 years (an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office, counting Dennis The Short's mathematical hose-ups on the whole <i>Anno Domini</i> tabulations.)</p><p>3) It's their office, thus their right... still open for parody and news purposes though, at least in western nations that enjoy freedom of speech. No different than if Tux the Penguin were registered as a trademark by the Linux Foundation, really (For instance, using Tux as a marker for Linux news stories, versus Microsoft using Tux as their new logo for Windows 8...) They're no further beyond or above secular law (outside of Vatican City) than any other organization... which makes the summary kind of a moot point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , yeah .
( Disclaimer : Catholic guy here .
Take that as you will ) 1 ) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an imprimatur [ reference.com ] ( The funny part is , the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission , but that 's a whole other argument that I 'm sure I 'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on ) .2 ) They 've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so , and the office for roughly 1973 years ( an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office , counting Dennis The Short 's mathematical hose-ups on the whole Anno Domini tabulations .
) 3 ) It 's their office , thus their right... still open for parody and news purposes though , at least in western nations that enjoy freedom of speech .
No different than if Tux the Penguin were registered as a trademark by the Linux Foundation , really ( For instance , using Tux as a marker for Linux news stories , versus Microsoft using Tux as their new logo for Windows 8... ) They 're no further beyond or above secular law ( outside of Vatican City ) than any other organization... which makes the summary kind of a moot point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, yeah.
(Disclaimer: Catholic guy here.
Take that as you will)1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an  imprimatur [reference.com]  (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).2) They've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so, and the office for roughly 1973 years (an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office, counting Dennis The Short's mathematical hose-ups on the whole Anno Domini tabulations.
)3) It's their office, thus their right... still open for parody and news purposes though, at least in western nations that enjoy freedom of speech.
No different than if Tux the Penguin were registered as a trademark by the Linux Foundation, really (For instance, using Tux as a marker for Linux news stories, versus Microsoft using Tux as their new logo for Windows 8...) They're no further beyond or above secular law (outside of Vatican City) than any other organization... which makes the summary kind of a moot point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509344</id>
	<title>no big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim. I don't think they're claiming that you can't refer to the pope or even display his symbols without permission. They just don't want them used in such a way as to suggest that the Pope has authorized something without permission. This is the same as a regular trademark. You can talk about IBM and even portray its logo; you just can't use them in such a way as to suggest that you speak for IBM or are affiliated with IBM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't been able to find the actual Vatican statement , but as the news accounts describe it , it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim .
I do n't think they 're claiming that you ca n't refer to the pope or even display his symbols without permission .
They just do n't want them used in such a way as to suggest that the Pope has authorized something without permission .
This is the same as a regular trademark .
You can talk about IBM and even portray its logo ; you just ca n't use them in such a way as to suggest that you speak for IBM or are affiliated with IBM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.
I don't think they're claiming that you can't refer to the pope or even display his symbols without permission.
They just don't want them used in such a way as to suggest that the Pope has authorized something without permission.
This is the same as a regular trademark.
You can talk about IBM and even portray its logo; you just can't use them in such a way as to suggest that you speak for IBM or are affiliated with IBM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509846</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean...</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1261429080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We have to <b>give</b> money in chur....

oh wait. never-mind.</p></div><p>What do you mean <i>give</i>?
</p><p>In Germany, they have a "church tax (Kirchensteuer)", which is deducted from your paycheck by your employer.  When you apply for your first tax card, there is a seemingly harmless question about what faith you have.  Once you check that box, you have opted yourself into this loop, and every year when your new tax card come, it will say to charge the church tax.
</p><p>In order to get out of this loop, you have to officially quit your membership of the church.  For poor Irish Catholic folks, a part of this process is getting a call from a local German priest, who threatens to call the priest in your hometown in Ireland, and inform your parents, and the rest of your hometown, as well.
</p><p>Now, I have only heard of this church tax in Germany, I know of no other countries that do this.
</p><p>Unfortunately, the new Pope happens to be German . . . hope he doesn't have any grander schemes planned . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to give money in chur... . oh wait .
never-mind.What do you mean give ?
In Germany , they have a " church tax ( Kirchensteuer ) " , which is deducted from your paycheck by your employer .
When you apply for your first tax card , there is a seemingly harmless question about what faith you have .
Once you check that box , you have opted yourself into this loop , and every year when your new tax card come , it will say to charge the church tax .
In order to get out of this loop , you have to officially quit your membership of the church .
For poor Irish Catholic folks , a part of this process is getting a call from a local German priest , who threatens to call the priest in your hometown in Ireland , and inform your parents , and the rest of your hometown , as well .
Now , I have only heard of this church tax in Germany , I know of no other countries that do this .
Unfortunately , the new Pope happens to be German .
. .
hope he does n't have any grander schemes planned .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have to give money in chur....

oh wait.
never-mind.What do you mean give?
In Germany, they have a "church tax (Kirchensteuer)", which is deducted from your paycheck by your employer.
When you apply for your first tax card, there is a seemingly harmless question about what faith you have.
Once you check that box, you have opted yourself into this loop, and every year when your new tax card come, it will say to charge the church tax.
In order to get out of this loop, you have to officially quit your membership of the church.
For poor Irish Catholic folks, a part of this process is getting a call from a local German priest, who threatens to call the priest in your hometown in Ireland, and inform your parents, and the rest of your hometown, as well.
Now, I have only heard of this church tax in Germany, I know of no other countries that do this.
Unfortunately, the new Pope happens to be German .
. .
hope he doesn't have any grander schemes planned .
. .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509778</id>
	<title>Vatican Law - Jurisdiction</title>
	<author>nia60</author>
	<datestamp>1261427760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the Vatican is a state with soverign rights and its own laws, I'm sure that this is totally enforceable - inside the Vatican's border that is!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the Vatican is a state with soverign rights and its own laws , I 'm sure that this is totally enforceable - inside the Vatican 's border that is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the Vatican is a state with soverign rights and its own laws, I'm sure that this is totally enforceable - inside the Vatican's border that is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509182</id>
	<title>KKK to sue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely the KKK did the whole pointy white hat thing first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely the KKK did the whole pointy white hat thing first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely the KKK did the whole pointy white hat thing first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511712</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261408920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology, rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human social 'evolution'."</p><p>I hate to feed trolls, but what do you have to back this up?  I am a regular church goer in the Catholic Church in the United States.  There are no dues, nothing to pay.  They ask, but there is no forced payment to belong to the church.  They will never withhold information they feel with help you, and though they will ask for money every week, they don't ask for names. They publish a full itemized account of where your money goes each year-- complete transparency that not even our government can manage and yet you freely name them as the next scientology, a group that is completely non-disclosure oriented and will sue and intimidate people for speaking negatively.</p><p>As for the Catholic Church not giving to Charity?  Catholic Charities alone bring in over 7 billion dollars a year and keeps only 3\% for administrative costs.  Keep in mind this is a decentralized organization which means there is no overarching control, just local units.  Most Parishes run their own additional charity organizations as well.  On average the cost of running is kept below 3\%, which is exemplary for any charity.</p><p>Scientology regularly attacks disbelievers and attempts to silence them. When was the last time the Catholic Church attacked someone for speaking against them?  The Church has a terrible history.  I cannot deny this, but today their own priests and followers are encouraged to question their religion since birth. The priests encourage talks about gay marriage (In fact it was a side topic of last weeks Homily) and promote talks about women in the priesthood.  Open meetings are frequently held to "get the pulse" of the people as well as inform them of the Churches current views.  Dialogue and openness are far more valued than simple dogma.  The church I attend now meets with the Muslim and Jewish communities each week to help better the community and build trust between faiths.  Together these groups have begun a home owning initiative to improve the state of the surrounding neighborhoods and increase awareness of each others charity programs.</p><p>You clearly know nothing about Catholicism (or are pretending to know nothing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology , rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human social 'evolution' .
" I hate to feed trolls , but what do you have to back this up ?
I am a regular church goer in the Catholic Church in the United States .
There are no dues , nothing to pay .
They ask , but there is no forced payment to belong to the church .
They will never withhold information they feel with help you , and though they will ask for money every week , they do n't ask for names .
They publish a full itemized account of where your money goes each year-- complete transparency that not even our government can manage and yet you freely name them as the next scientology , a group that is completely non-disclosure oriented and will sue and intimidate people for speaking negatively.As for the Catholic Church not giving to Charity ?
Catholic Charities alone bring in over 7 billion dollars a year and keeps only 3 \ % for administrative costs .
Keep in mind this is a decentralized organization which means there is no overarching control , just local units .
Most Parishes run their own additional charity organizations as well .
On average the cost of running is kept below 3 \ % , which is exemplary for any charity.Scientology regularly attacks disbelievers and attempts to silence them .
When was the last time the Catholic Church attacked someone for speaking against them ?
The Church has a terrible history .
I can not deny this , but today their own priests and followers are encouraged to question their religion since birth .
The priests encourage talks about gay marriage ( In fact it was a side topic of last weeks Homily ) and promote talks about women in the priesthood .
Open meetings are frequently held to " get the pulse " of the people as well as inform them of the Churches current views .
Dialogue and openness are far more valued than simple dogma .
The church I attend now meets with the Muslim and Jewish communities each week to help better the community and build trust between faiths .
Together these groups have begun a home owning initiative to improve the state of the surrounding neighborhoods and increase awareness of each others charity programs.You clearly know nothing about Catholicism ( or are pretending to know nothing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology, rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human social 'evolution'.
"I hate to feed trolls, but what do you have to back this up?
I am a regular church goer in the Catholic Church in the United States.
There are no dues, nothing to pay.
They ask, but there is no forced payment to belong to the church.
They will never withhold information they feel with help you, and though they will ask for money every week, they don't ask for names.
They publish a full itemized account of where your money goes each year-- complete transparency that not even our government can manage and yet you freely name them as the next scientology, a group that is completely non-disclosure oriented and will sue and intimidate people for speaking negatively.As for the Catholic Church not giving to Charity?
Catholic Charities alone bring in over 7 billion dollars a year and keeps only 3\% for administrative costs.
Keep in mind this is a decentralized organization which means there is no overarching control, just local units.
Most Parishes run their own additional charity organizations as well.
On average the cost of running is kept below 3\%, which is exemplary for any charity.Scientology regularly attacks disbelievers and attempts to silence them.
When was the last time the Catholic Church attacked someone for speaking against them?
The Church has a terrible history.
I cannot deny this, but today their own priests and followers are encouraged to question their religion since birth.
The priests encourage talks about gay marriage (In fact it was a side topic of last weeks Homily) and promote talks about women in the priesthood.
Open meetings are frequently held to "get the pulse" of the people as well as inform them of the Churches current views.
Dialogue and openness are far more valued than simple dogma.
The church I attend now meets with the Muslim and Jewish communities each week to help better the community and build trust between faiths.
Together these groups have begun a home owning initiative to improve the state of the surrounding neighborhoods and increase awareness of each others charity programs.You clearly know nothing about Catholicism (or are pretending to know nothing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514068</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible article</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1261420320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican...</p></div></blockquote><p>(1) States often claim extraterritorial application of their laws (in fact, the US has many laws that apply <i>only</i> outside of the United States), and enforce them against alleged extraterritorial violators when they manage to bring them before the state's courts.<br>(2) The Holy See is not, anyhow, the State of Vatican City, it is the ecclesiastical office of the Pope, of which the office of soveriegn over the State of Vatican City is but a component. The ecclesiastical laws of the Church are, in theory at least, binding on Catholics everywhere in the world, and are enforced not in courts specific to the State of Vatican City, but in the ecclesiastical courts of every Catholic diocese.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican... ( 1 ) States often claim extraterritorial application of their laws ( in fact , the US has many laws that apply only outside of the United States ) , and enforce them against alleged extraterritorial violators when they manage to bring them before the state 's courts .
( 2 ) The Holy See is not , anyhow , the State of Vatican City , it is the ecclesiastical office of the Pope , of which the office of soveriegn over the State of Vatican City is but a component .
The ecclesiastical laws of the Church are , in theory at least , binding on Catholics everywhere in the world , and are enforced not in courts specific to the State of Vatican City , but in the ecclesiastical courts of every Catholic diocese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican...(1) States often claim extraterritorial application of their laws (in fact, the US has many laws that apply only outside of the United States), and enforce them against alleged extraterritorial violators when they manage to bring them before the state's courts.
(2) The Holy See is not, anyhow, the State of Vatican City, it is the ecclesiastical office of the Pope, of which the office of soveriegn over the State of Vatican City is but a component.
The ecclesiastical laws of the Church are, in theory at least, binding on Catholics everywhere in the world, and are enforced not in courts specific to the State of Vatican City, but in the ecclesiastical courts of every Catholic diocese.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508846</id>
	<title>Perhaps the world is now ready for PRM</title>
	<author>ekgringo</author>
	<datestamp>1261328580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Papal Restrictions Management.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Papal Restrictions Management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Papal Restrictions Management.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509556</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1261337340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if they will try to get money from me for having been ordained as a Discordian Pope?
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they will try to get money from me for having been ordained as a Discordian Pope ?
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they will try to get money from me for having been ordained as a Discordian Pope?
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514248</id>
	<title>Re:no big deal (and the actual statement)</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1261421280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.</p></div></blockquote><p>The <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/secretariat\_state/2009/documents/rc\_seg-st\_20091219\_tutela-figura-papa\_en.html" title="vatican.va">statement</a> [vatican.va] is available from the Vatican web site, and doesn't appear to claim any particular kind of legal protection (at least not under any secular law), simply a policy statement. The groups it is directed at are probably largely Catholic groups that don't have any particular intent to challenge the Holy See and see what they are doing as consistent with the interests of the heirarchy, so a general statement of policy is probably as far as this is intended to go.</p><p>It might be viewed as a clarification of the way the Holy See views the applicability of the Code of Canon Law, specifically, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/\_\_P12.HTM" title="vatican.va">Canon 312</a> [vatican.va] Sec. 3 Para. 1, reserving the authority to erect "public associations of the Christian faithful" with "universal and international" scope to the Holy See.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't been able to find the actual Vatican statement , but as the news accounts describe it , it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.The statement [ vatican.va ] is available from the Vatican web site , and does n't appear to claim any particular kind of legal protection ( at least not under any secular law ) , simply a policy statement .
The groups it is directed at are probably largely Catholic groups that do n't have any particular intent to challenge the Holy See and see what they are doing as consistent with the interests of the heirarchy , so a general statement of policy is probably as far as this is intended to go.It might be viewed as a clarification of the way the Holy See views the applicability of the Code of Canon Law , specifically , Canon 312 [ vatican.va ] Sec .
3 Para .
1 , reserving the authority to erect " public associations of the Christian faithful " with " universal and international " scope to the Holy See .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.The statement [vatican.va] is available from the Vatican web site, and doesn't appear to claim any particular kind of legal protection (at least not under any secular law), simply a policy statement.
The groups it is directed at are probably largely Catholic groups that don't have any particular intent to challenge the Holy See and see what they are doing as consistent with the interests of the heirarchy, so a general statement of policy is probably as far as this is intended to go.It might be viewed as a clarification of the way the Holy See views the applicability of the Code of Canon Law, specifically, Canon 312 [vatican.va] Sec.
3 Para.
1, reserving the authority to erect "public associations of the Christian faithful" with "universal and international" scope to the Holy See.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508866</id>
	<title>Comics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There goes reprints of "Battle Pope".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There goes reprints of " Battle Pope " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There goes reprints of "Battle Pope".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512454</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>orzetto</author>
	<datestamp>1261413180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an  imprimatur [reference.com] (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).</p></div></blockquote><p>Italian guy here. Studied what an imprimatur was and its implications in literature in high school. In Galileo's times, imprimaturs ("be it printed", Latin) were <em>necessary</em> to print books in several areas of Italy, including, of course, the Papal States and all states that cared about good relationships with Rome. Therefore, obviously had Galileo to falsify one to publish a book, he would not have been able otherwise.</p><p>On the other hand, imprimaturs were widely recognised as marks of <em>bad</em> quality publications. They caused the same reaction that a label reading "this videogame has been approved by the Christian union of concerned mothers" would today.</p><p>No book worth reading has ever received the imprimatur, to my knowledge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an imprimatur [ reference.com ] ( The funny part is , the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission , but that 's a whole other argument that I 'm sure I 'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on ) .Italian guy here .
Studied what an imprimatur was and its implications in literature in high school .
In Galileo 's times , imprimaturs ( " be it printed " , Latin ) were necessary to print books in several areas of Italy , including , of course , the Papal States and all states that cared about good relationships with Rome .
Therefore , obviously had Galileo to falsify one to publish a book , he would not have been able otherwise.On the other hand , imprimaturs were widely recognised as marks of bad quality publications .
They caused the same reaction that a label reading " this videogame has been approved by the Christian union of concerned mothers " would today.No book worth reading has ever received the imprimatur , to my knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an  imprimatur [reference.com] (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).Italian guy here.
Studied what an imprimatur was and its implications in literature in high school.
In Galileo's times, imprimaturs ("be it printed", Latin) were necessary to print books in several areas of Italy, including, of course, the Papal States and all states that cared about good relationships with Rome.
Therefore, obviously had Galileo to falsify one to publish a book, he would not have been able otherwise.On the other hand, imprimaturs were widely recognised as marks of bad quality publications.
They caused the same reaction that a label reading "this videogame has been approved by the Christian union of concerned mothers" would today.No book worth reading has ever received the imprimatur, to my knowledge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509726</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>DreamsAreOkToo</author>
	<datestamp>1261426860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translations are considered copyright-able.  Frequently you'll see people getting sued over making copies of shakespear... and losing.</p><p>Our legal quagmire is a swampy minefield of shitpiles, but hey, at least its a smaller shitpile than that guy over there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translations are considered copyright-able .
Frequently you 'll see people getting sued over making copies of shakespear... and losing.Our legal quagmire is a swampy minefield of shitpiles , but hey , at least its a smaller shitpile than that guy over there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translations are considered copyright-able.
Frequently you'll see people getting sued over making copies of shakespear... and losing.Our legal quagmire is a swampy minefield of shitpiles, but hey, at least its a smaller shitpile than that guy over there!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509964</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>copyright is the enemy of a free society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>copyright is the enemy of a free society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>copyright is the enemy of a free society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30517326</id>
	<title>Which begs the question...</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1261392600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we need the rights to him, can we pay the papal people with paypal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we need the rights to him , can we pay the papal people with paypal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we need the rights to him, can we pay the papal people with paypal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509370</id>
	<title>Re:Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>Max Littlemore</author>
	<datestamp>1261334580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but Scientology registered a trademark. Which gets me thinking: surely if they have a trademark, they are trading. Surely that makes them a business and they lose tax free status. Laws around the world really need to be updated to clarify that.</p><p>You are either a business with trademarks and copyrights, or you are a church. that must content itself with religious vilification laws. Simple</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but Scientology registered a trademark .
Which gets me thinking : surely if they have a trademark , they are trading .
Surely that makes them a business and they lose tax free status .
Laws around the world really need to be updated to clarify that.You are either a business with trademarks and copyrights , or you are a church .
that must content itself with religious vilification laws .
Simple</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but Scientology registered a trademark.
Which gets me thinking: surely if they have a trademark, they are trading.
Surely that makes them a business and they lose tax free status.
Laws around the world really need to be updated to clarify that.You are either a business with trademarks and copyrights, or you are a church.
that must content itself with religious vilification laws.
Simple</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510658</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't surprise me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261397940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How in the heck can a religion do this? </i> <br> <br> I take it you're not up on the history of and true nature of religion(s). The function of religions broadly has a lot more to do with control than anything else.  The differences are mostly a matter of the social and cultural milieu in which they reside and of scale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How in the heck can a religion do this ?
I take it you 're not up on the history of and true nature of religion ( s ) .
The function of religions broadly has a lot more to do with control than anything else .
The differences are mostly a matter of the social and cultural milieu in which they reside and of scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How in the heck can a religion do this?
I take it you're not up on the history of and true nature of religion(s).
The function of religions broadly has a lot more to do with control than anything else.
The differences are mostly a matter of the social and cultural milieu in which they reside and of scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509474</id>
	<title>As we know it today?</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1261336140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno, you don't get executed for having an unauthorised copy of the bible like in the good old days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , you do n't get executed for having an unauthorised copy of the bible like in the good old days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, you don't get executed for having an unauthorised copy of the bible like in the good old days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30523140</id>
	<title>What about the old one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261494420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are obsolete versions of the pope under the same copyright? I mean, how illegal would it be to wear a Penn and Teller inspired t-shirt with something similar to this (NSWF): http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9909/oldpope.png</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are obsolete versions of the pope under the same copyright ?
I mean , how illegal would it be to wear a Penn and Teller inspired t-shirt with something similar to this ( NSWF ) : http : //img214.imageshack.us/img214/9909/oldpope.png</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are obsolete versions of the pope under the same copyright?
I mean, how illegal would it be to wear a Penn and Teller inspired t-shirt with something similar to this (NSWF): http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9909/oldpope.png</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508986</id>
	<title>Statues on timelimit to "copyright"</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1261329780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does this pass those statues? I can see if someone is using the current Pope's coat of arms or his particular name, in association with their service/company/announcement etc., but simply using a past Pope's coat of arms (especially one that has long been out of active use) can be restricted. Especially for ones which were developed and first used before trademark and copyrights even were written into law. Those are all in the public domain and free to use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this pass those statues ?
I can see if someone is using the current Pope 's coat of arms or his particular name , in association with their service/company/announcement etc. , but simply using a past Pope 's coat of arms ( especially one that has long been out of active use ) can be restricted .
Especially for ones which were developed and first used before trademark and copyrights even were written into law .
Those are all in the public domain and free to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this pass those statues?
I can see if someone is using the current Pope's coat of arms or his particular name, in association with their service/company/announcement etc., but simply using a past Pope's coat of arms (especially one that has long been out of active use) can be restricted.
Especially for ones which were developed and first used before trademark and copyrights even were written into law.
Those are all in the public domain and free to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30517060</id>
	<title>Re:Fine.</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1261391160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent.  A reproducable process for performing mircales.  I'm so gonna start bringing back the dead in 18 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent .
A reproducable process for performing mircales .
I 'm so gon na start bringing back the dead in 18 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent.
A reproducable process for performing mircales.
I'm so gonna start bringing back the dead in 18 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509630</id>
	<title>In response to Sabina Guzzanti?</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1261338660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how much of this is a response to events like Sabina Guzzanti saying that Benedict had gay demons waiting for him in Hell. The Italian government tried to send her to jail for five years for saying that, specifically for the crime of insulting the Pope (which is a crime thanks to the Lateran Treaty of the 1920's). But after the case lost momentum... well, I wonder if they're not trying to shut her up in a different way, now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how much of this is a response to events like Sabina Guzzanti saying that Benedict had gay demons waiting for him in Hell .
The Italian government tried to send her to jail for five years for saying that , specifically for the crime of insulting the Pope ( which is a crime thanks to the Lateran Treaty of the 1920 's ) .
But after the case lost momentum... well , I wonder if they 're not trying to shut her up in a different way , now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how much of this is a response to events like Sabina Guzzanti saying that Benedict had gay demons waiting for him in Hell.
The Italian government tried to send her to jail for five years for saying that, specifically for the crime of insulting the Pope (which is a crime thanks to the Lateran Treaty of the 1920's).
But after the case lost momentum... well, I wonder if they're not trying to shut her up in a different way, now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054</id>
	<title>Re:Scope</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1261330440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Pope?  How many IP lawyers does he have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pope ?
How many IP lawyers does he have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pope?
How many IP lawyers does he have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509826</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb."  Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.  Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are!  I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.)  Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith, and I'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course, here I am a Baptist whose theological 40\% evangelical, 30\% Anbaptist, and 30\% Eastern Orthodox, so maybe that's not surprising.</p></div><p>You do now that copyists and printers that made mistakes i copying the bible was punished severly, usually by death, until the 18th century. Proofreading was a matter of life and death.</p><p>During the period the Bible was transcribed, monosteries had a monoply. Not very surprising as different Guilds had monpoly on different crafts.</p><p>Gutenberg and some other printers had powerful protectors. But the result of their work was quality controlled by the Church and the Church had the power to punish them severly, even for small mistakes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that , with copyright as we know it today , Christianity would have died " in the womb .
" Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul 's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches .
Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted ( the way that the modern critical texts are !
I still do n't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted .
) Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith , and I 'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course , here I am a Baptist whose theological 40 \ % evangelical , 30 \ % Anbaptist , and 30 \ % Eastern Orthodox , so maybe that 's not surprising.You do now that copyists and printers that made mistakes i copying the bible was punished severly , usually by death , until the 18th century .
Proofreading was a matter of life and death.During the period the Bible was transcribed , monosteries had a monoply .
Not very surprising as different Guilds had monpoly on different crafts.Gutenberg and some other printers had powerful protectors .
But the result of their work was quality controlled by the Church and the Church had the power to punish them severly , even for small mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb.
"  Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.
Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are!
I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.
)  Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith, and I'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course, here I am a Baptist whose theological 40\% evangelical, 30\% Anbaptist, and 30\% Eastern Orthodox, so maybe that's not surprising.You do now that copyists and printers that made mistakes i copying the bible was punished severly, usually by death, until the 18th century.
Proofreading was a matter of life and death.During the period the Bible was transcribed, monosteries had a monoply.
Not very surprising as different Guilds had monpoly on different crafts.Gutenberg and some other printers had powerful protectors.
But the result of their work was quality controlled by the Church and the Church had the power to punish them severly, even for small mistakes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30513370</id>
	<title>Buca di Beppo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261417380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.bucadibeppo.com/<br>One of my favorite restaurants will probably have to close now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.bucadibeppo.com/One of my favorite restaurants will probably have to close now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.bucadibeppo.com/One of my favorite restaurants will probably have to close now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511464</id>
	<title>Re:Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1261407360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You are either a business with trademarks and copyrights, or you are a church. that must content itself with religious vilification laws. Simple</p></div></blockquote><p>

Simple, but not true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are either a business with trademarks and copyrights , or you are a church .
that must content itself with religious vilification laws .
Simple Simple , but not true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are either a business with trademarks and copyrights, or you are a church.
that must content itself with religious vilification laws.
Simple

Simple, but not true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509256</id>
	<title>Re:Scope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/contact.jsp?country\_id=182&amp;type=ADMIN\_IP" title="wipo.int" rel="nofollow">http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/contact.jsp?country\_id=182&amp;type=ADMIN\_IP</a> [wipo.int]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.wipo.int/directory/en/contact.jsp ? country \ _id = 182&amp;type = ADMIN \ _IP [ wipo.int ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/contact.jsp?country\_id=182&amp;type=ADMIN\_IP [wipo.int]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814</id>
	<title>Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That the take-down notice is a lightning bolt... up your butt.  You've been warned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That the take-down notice is a lightning bolt... up your butt .
You 've been warned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the take-down notice is a lightning bolt... up your butt.
You've been warned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509822</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacy</p></div></blockquote><p>Supremacy? No, but they do claim infallibility. From WP:</p><blockquote><div><p>Over the centuries, popes' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed, culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra (literally "from the chair (of Peter)") to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals.[2] The first (after the proclamation) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950, with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.</p></div></blockquote><p>PS: Slashdot, fix the fucking comment box.</p></div><p>Yea and also fix the fuckwit signup system it aint mailed my password back yet 48 hours is a frikkin joke</p><p>This pope thing is easy NUKE the fuck out of the whole lot of em there aint no friikin god never has been never can be   never will be  just a bunch of sheep following a few mind control dudes wake the fuck up .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacySupremacy ?
No , but they do claim infallibility .
From WP : Over the centuries , popes ' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed , culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra ( literally " from the chair ( of Peter ) " ) to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals .
[ 2 ] The first ( after the proclamation ) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950 , with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.PS : Slashdot , fix the fucking comment box.Yea and also fix the fuckwit signup system it aint mailed my password back yet 48 hours is a frikkin jokeThis pope thing is easy NUKE the fuck out of the whole lot of em there aint no friikin god never has been never can be never will be just a bunch of sheep following a few mind control dudes wake the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacySupremacy?
No, but they do claim infallibility.
From WP:Over the centuries, popes' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed, culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra (literally "from the chair (of Peter)") to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals.
[2] The first (after the proclamation) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950, with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.PS: Slashdot, fix the fucking comment box.Yea and also fix the fuckwit signup system it aint mailed my password back yet 48 hours is a frikkin jokeThis pope thing is easy NUKE the fuck out of the whole lot of em there aint no friikin god never has been never can be   never will be  just a bunch of sheep following a few mind control dudes wake the fuck up .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509078</id>
	<title>Isn't TM good enough?</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261330680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trademark is the appropriate protection.

</p><p>Of all the things for such a bunch of sticks in the mud to pick to suddenly get with the times, why did they pick copyright?  And why in such a bad way?  They must listen to terrible advice. They ought to be out there decrying the evils of keeping people in the dark, not dirtying their hands wielding diabolical tools for dubious ends!  They ought to endorse the Pirate Party.  What's next?  Will they try to assert copyright on the Bible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trademark is the appropriate protection .
Of all the things for such a bunch of sticks in the mud to pick to suddenly get with the times , why did they pick copyright ?
And why in such a bad way ?
They must listen to terrible advice .
They ought to be out there decrying the evils of keeping people in the dark , not dirtying their hands wielding diabolical tools for dubious ends !
They ought to endorse the Pirate Party .
What 's next ?
Will they try to assert copyright on the Bible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trademark is the appropriate protection.
Of all the things for such a bunch of sticks in the mud to pick to suddenly get with the times, why did they pick copyright?
And why in such a bad way?
They must listen to terrible advice.
They ought to be out there decrying the evils of keeping people in the dark, not dirtying their hands wielding diabolical tools for dubious ends!
They ought to endorse the Pirate Party.
What's next?
Will they try to assert copyright on the Bible?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510426</id>
	<title>WHAT ARE TRADEMARKS THEN???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261394640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WHAT ARE TRADEMARKS THEN??? That's EXACTLY what trademarks are for.</p><p>Pope on a frigging rope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHAT ARE TRADEMARKS THEN ? ? ?
That 's EXACTLY what trademarks are for.Pope on a frigging rope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHAT ARE TRADEMARKS THEN???
That's EXACTLY what trademarks are for.Pope on a frigging rope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508880</id>
	<title>Does this mean...</title>
	<author>myrmidon666</author>
	<datestamp>1261328880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have to give money in chur....

oh wait. never-mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to give money in chur... . oh wait .
never-mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have to give money in chur....

oh wait.
never-mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509060</id>
	<title>Re:Scope</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1261330500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since this "copyright" is of a fairly unorthodox form(seemingly a weird blend of copyright and trademark) it may not matter; but the Vatican is a Berne Convention signatory.<br> <br>

If it satisfies Berne, it applies all over the place. If it doesn't, I sure hope the swiss guard likes exercise...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this " copyright " is of a fairly unorthodox form ( seemingly a weird blend of copyright and trademark ) it may not matter ; but the Vatican is a Berne Convention signatory .
If it satisfies Berne , it applies all over the place .
If it does n't , I sure hope the swiss guard likes exercise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this "copyright" is of a fairly unorthodox form(seemingly a weird blend of copyright and trademark) it may not matter; but the Vatican is a Berne Convention signatory.
If it satisfies Berne, it applies all over the place.
If it doesn't, I sure hope the swiss guard likes exercise...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512154</id>
	<title>It's an SNL Skit Come to Life</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261411440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From <a href="http://snltranscripts.jt.org/79/79aupdate.phtml" title="jt.org">Weekend Update in 1979</a> [jt.org]:<blockquote><div><p> <b>Father Guido Sarducci:</b> It was. It was a real thrill, Bill. It was just terrific. But now I'm a little down. I have what my psychiatrist calls "post-papal depression."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Was such a high, you know, bein' on that tour and now it's over. Only thing I didn't like about the tour was the merchandising. They had, like, Pope T-shirts, Pope buttons, posters, banners, anything you can think of. You know, you can call me anti-materialistic if you want to but I just don't think it's right for somebody to make a T-shirt, put a person's picture on it, and then not to give that person part of the percentage of the profits.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I mean, look at this. It's amazing. [holds up a Pope T-shirt] If you buy T-shirt like this, it's not just for the T-shirt you buy it -- it's because the Pope is on it. If you just want a T-shirt, you can go to J. C. Penney's 'stead of going through all the traffic and crowds. But the Pope, from this T-shirt, I'll tell you what he got. He got absolutely zero. It was a rip-off. First, they did it to Mr. Bill, now the Pope.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [applause]</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Weekend Update in 1979 [ jt.org ] : Father Guido Sarducci : It was .
It was a real thrill , Bill .
It was just terrific .
But now I 'm a little down .
I have what my psychiatrist calls " post-papal depression .
" ... Was such a high , you know , bein ' on that tour and now it 's over .
Only thing I did n't like about the tour was the merchandising .
They had , like , Pope T-shirts , Pope buttons , posters , banners , anything you can think of .
You know , you can call me anti-materialistic if you want to but I just do n't think it 's right for somebody to make a T-shirt , put a person 's picture on it , and then not to give that person part of the percentage of the profits .
... I mean , look at this .
It 's amazing .
[ holds up a Pope T-shirt ] If you buy T-shirt like this , it 's not just for the T-shirt you buy it -- it 's because the Pope is on it .
If you just want a T-shirt , you can go to J. C. Penney 's 'stead of going through all the traffic and crowds .
But the Pope , from this T-shirt , I 'll tell you what he got .
He got absolutely zero .
It was a rip-off .
First , they did it to Mr. Bill , now the Pope .
... [ applause ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Weekend Update in 1979 [jt.org]: Father Guido Sarducci: It was.
It was a real thrill, Bill.
It was just terrific.
But now I'm a little down.
I have what my psychiatrist calls "post-papal depression.
" ... Was such a high, you know, bein' on that tour and now it's over.
Only thing I didn't like about the tour was the merchandising.
They had, like, Pope T-shirts, Pope buttons, posters, banners, anything you can think of.
You know, you can call me anti-materialistic if you want to but I just don't think it's right for somebody to make a T-shirt, put a person's picture on it, and then not to give that person part of the percentage of the profits.
... I mean, look at this.
It's amazing.
[holds up a Pope T-shirt] If you buy T-shirt like this, it's not just for the T-shirt you buy it -- it's because the Pope is on it.
If you just want a T-shirt, you can go to J. C. Penney's 'stead of going through all the traffic and crowds.
But the Pope, from this T-shirt, I'll tell you what he got.
He got absolutely zero.
It was a rip-off.
First, they did it to Mr. Bill, now the Pope.
... [applause]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509740</id>
	<title>Re:Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261427220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...who have found using IP an effective way to manage criticism.</p></div><p>Allow me to be the <i>n</i>th person to say "Read The Friendly Article".  Far from managing <i>criticism</i>, this is about limiting the number of people who want to trade on the pope's image.  "The Papal Book of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...", "The Pope's No 1 tomato sauce recipe", etc.  It doesn't sound much like "criticism" if you're trying to plaster the pope's image all over your product or service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...who have found using IP an effective way to manage criticism.Allow me to be the nth person to say " Read The Friendly Article " .
Far from managing criticism , this is about limiting the number of people who want to trade on the pope 's image .
" The Papal Book of ... " , " The Pope 's No 1 tomato sauce recipe " , etc .
It does n't sound much like " criticism " if you 're trying to plaster the pope 's image all over your product or service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...who have found using IP an effective way to manage criticism.Allow me to be the nth person to say "Read The Friendly Article".
Far from managing criticism, this is about limiting the number of people who want to trade on the pope's image.
"The Papal Book of ...", "The Pope's No 1 tomato sauce recipe", etc.
It doesn't sound much like "criticism" if you're trying to plaster the pope's image all over your product or service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509936</id>
	<title>And in other news...</title>
	<author>jamyskis</author>
	<datestamp>1261387140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, in other news...</p><p>The Pope was today sued by God for GPL violations of the Bible. The complaint submitted by God claimed that all material published by the Holy Father was required to be released under the GNU General Public Licence because it was a derivative work of the scriptures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , in other news...The Pope was today sued by God for GPL violations of the Bible .
The complaint submitted by God claimed that all material published by the Holy Father was required to be released under the GNU General Public Licence because it was a derivative work of the scriptures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, in other news...The Pope was today sued by God for GPL violations of the Bible.
The complaint submitted by God claimed that all material published by the Holy Father was required to be released under the GNU General Public Licence because it was a derivative work of the scriptures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509084</id>
	<title>Applicability and Scope</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1261330860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's been at least one long standing battle in the US over much the same problem: people taking an image, name and/or conceptual equivalent, and using it in such a way as to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... dishonor is frequently used here, but not many understand the it from the injured parties' standing.... insult is closer but too weak<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we'll just say: to promote a commercial product, the juxtaposition of the appropriated image and the product being contrary to the known statements of the party imaged and/or the descendants.</p><p>The product in this case is Crazy Horse malt liquor. Crazy Horse spoke out against alcohol many times, specifically claiming its use was destroying his people. His descendants have been trying to get the brewer to stop using the name. No, they didn;t attempt to acquire copy right or trademark protection, because they didn't think they'd need it. In their culture, such protection is automatic and seated deeply in the cultural mores.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's been at least one long standing battle in the US over much the same problem : people taking an image , name and/or conceptual equivalent , and using it in such a way as to ... dishonor is frequently used here , but not many understand the it from the injured parties ' standing.... insult is closer but too weak ... we 'll just say : to promote a commercial product , the juxtaposition of the appropriated image and the product being contrary to the known statements of the party imaged and/or the descendants.The product in this case is Crazy Horse malt liquor .
Crazy Horse spoke out against alcohol many times , specifically claiming its use was destroying his people .
His descendants have been trying to get the brewer to stop using the name .
No , they didn ; t attempt to acquire copy right or trademark protection , because they did n't think they 'd need it .
In their culture , such protection is automatic and seated deeply in the cultural mores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's been at least one long standing battle in the US over much the same problem: people taking an image, name and/or conceptual equivalent, and using it in such a way as to ... dishonor is frequently used here, but not many understand the it from the injured parties' standing.... insult is closer but too weak ... we'll just say: to promote a commercial product, the juxtaposition of the appropriated image and the product being contrary to the known statements of the party imaged and/or the descendants.The product in this case is Crazy Horse malt liquor.
Crazy Horse spoke out against alcohol many times, specifically claiming its use was destroying his people.
His descendants have been trying to get the brewer to stop using the name.
No, they didn;t attempt to acquire copy right or trademark protection, because they didn't think they'd need it.
In their culture, such protection is automatic and seated deeply in the cultural mores.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510024</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>testadicazzo</author>
	<datestamp>1261388520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't a copyright claim (the headline is completely wrong).  It's a trademark claim.  Copyright is a TEMPORARY restriction to free speech to encourage creative works.  Even though Disney et al have been expanding copyright lengths to keep from returning their copyrighted material to the public domain (where it belongs), copyright lengths are still less than a hundred years.  So even if they wanted to, they couldn't make a copyright claim on stuff that's more than a thousand years old.    Trademarks are a different story.
<p>
The distinction between copyright, trademark, and patent law is important in todays information wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a copyright claim ( the headline is completely wrong ) .
It 's a trademark claim .
Copyright is a TEMPORARY restriction to free speech to encourage creative works .
Even though Disney et al have been expanding copyright lengths to keep from returning their copyrighted material to the public domain ( where it belongs ) , copyright lengths are still less than a hundred years .
So even if they wanted to , they could n't make a copyright claim on stuff that 's more than a thousand years old .
Trademarks are a different story .
The distinction between copyright , trademark , and patent law is important in todays information wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a copyright claim (the headline is completely wrong).
It's a trademark claim.
Copyright is a TEMPORARY restriction to free speech to encourage creative works.
Even though Disney et al have been expanding copyright lengths to keep from returning their copyrighted material to the public domain (where it belongs), copyright lengths are still less than a hundred years.
So even if they wanted to, they couldn't make a copyright claim on stuff that's more than a thousand years old.
Trademarks are a different story.
The distinction between copyright, trademark, and patent law is important in todays information wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509028</id>
	<title>Perverts are always trying this</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1261330140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/sns-ap-us-inmate-name-copyright,0,6423024.story" title="baltimoresun.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/sns-ap-us-inmate-name-copyright,0,6423024.story</a> [baltimoresun.com]
</p><p>
BTW - The Catholic church has already paid out more than a Billion dollars in settlements for priests who are child molesters.
</p><p>
<i>"Former SD lawmaker convicted of raping foster daughters claims copyright of name.
</i></p><p><i>
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A former South Dakota lawmaker convicted of raping his two foster daughters has sent news organizations what he claims is a copyright notice that seeks to prevent the use of his name without his consent.
</i></p><p><i>
A letter and an accompanying document labeled "Common Law Copyright Notice" said former state Rep. Ted Alvin Klaudt is reserving a common-law copyright of a trade name or trademark for his name. It said no one can use his name without his consent, and anyone who does would owe him $500,000.
</i></p><p><i>
Klaudt was convicted in 2007 on four counts of second-degree rape for touching his teenage foster daughters' breasts and genitals in phony examinations he said could help them sell their eggs to infertile couples. He was sentenced to 44 years in prison for rape and 10 more years after pleading guilty to two counts of witness tampering.
</i></p><p><i>
The notice, received by The Associated Press and several other news organizations Monday, carried a return address that matched that of the state prison in Springfield, where Klaudt is being held
</i>:
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.baltimoresun.com/business/sns-ap-us-inmate-name-copyright,0,6423024.story [ baltimoresun.com ] BTW - The Catholic church has already paid out more than a Billion dollars in settlements for priests who are child molesters .
" Former SD lawmaker convicted of raping foster daughters claims copyright of name .
PIERRE , S.D .
( AP ) -- A former South Dakota lawmaker convicted of raping his two foster daughters has sent news organizations what he claims is a copyright notice that seeks to prevent the use of his name without his consent .
A letter and an accompanying document labeled " Common Law Copyright Notice " said former state Rep. Ted Alvin Klaudt is reserving a common-law copyright of a trade name or trademark for his name .
It said no one can use his name without his consent , and anyone who does would owe him $ 500,000 .
Klaudt was convicted in 2007 on four counts of second-degree rape for touching his teenage foster daughters ' breasts and genitals in phony examinations he said could help them sell their eggs to infertile couples .
He was sentenced to 44 years in prison for rape and 10 more years after pleading guilty to two counts of witness tampering .
The notice , received by The Associated Press and several other news organizations Monday , carried a return address that matched that of the state prison in Springfield , where Klaudt is being held :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/sns-ap-us-inmate-name-copyright,0,6423024.story [baltimoresun.com]

BTW - The Catholic church has already paid out more than a Billion dollars in settlements for priests who are child molesters.
"Former SD lawmaker convicted of raping foster daughters claims copyright of name.
PIERRE, S.D.
(AP) -- A former South Dakota lawmaker convicted of raping his two foster daughters has sent news organizations what he claims is a copyright notice that seeks to prevent the use of his name without his consent.
A letter and an accompanying document labeled "Common Law Copyright Notice" said former state Rep. Ted Alvin Klaudt is reserving a common-law copyright of a trade name or trademark for his name.
It said no one can use his name without his consent, and anyone who does would owe him $500,000.
Klaudt was convicted in 2007 on four counts of second-degree rape for touching his teenage foster daughters' breasts and genitals in phony examinations he said could help them sell their eggs to infertile couples.
He was sentenced to 44 years in prison for rape and 10 more years after pleading guilty to two counts of witness tampering.
The notice, received by The Associated Press and several other news organizations Monday, carried a return address that matched that of the state prison in Springfield, where Klaudt is being held
:
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509956</id>
	<title>Re:Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1261387440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course to claim copyright they have to claim that the pope is a "creative work", like a play act rather than appointed by God. I cannot imagine that I would ever have need to infringe this copyright, but if I did then I would simply ask them to give a declaration that the pope and papal privilidge is all a creative work and I would capitulate. It would be inteesting to see what they'd so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course to claim copyright they have to claim that the pope is a " creative work " , like a play act rather than appointed by God .
I can not imagine that I would ever have need to infringe this copyright , but if I did then I would simply ask them to give a declaration that the pope and papal privilidge is all a creative work and I would capitulate .
It would be inteesting to see what they 'd so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course to claim copyright they have to claim that the pope is a "creative work", like a play act rather than appointed by God.
I cannot imagine that I would ever have need to infringe this copyright, but if I did then I would simply ask them to give a declaration that the pope and papal privilidge is all a creative work and I would capitulate.
It would be inteesting to see what they'd so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510942</id>
	<title>Really?!</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1261401900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?</p> </div><p>Just how many high schools would this be a problem for?  (and one would assume that Catholic schools would be exempt...)
</p><p>
It seems to me the move is attempt to stifle criticism, satire, &amp; parody.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns ?
Just how many high schools would this be a problem for ?
( and one would assume that Catholic schools would be exempt... ) It seems to me the move is attempt to stifle criticism , satire , &amp; parody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?
Just how many high schools would this be a problem for?
(and one would assume that Catholic schools would be exempt...)

It seems to me the move is attempt to stifle criticism, satire, &amp; parody.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511422</id>
	<title>Prevent free satire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's probably just meant to prevent some senseless cartoonists in Denmark from drawing pictures of the Pope, wearing a bomb shaped tiara...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably just meant to prevent some senseless cartoonists in Denmark from drawing pictures of the Pope , wearing a bomb shaped tiara.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably just meant to prevent some senseless cartoonists in Denmark from drawing pictures of the Pope, wearing a bomb shaped tiara...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509696</id>
	<title>Good, now he can finish the job.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261426260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good, now the pope can finish the job and shut up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good , now the pope can finish the job and shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good, now the pope can finish the job and shut up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509682</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261426020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In essence, the Roman Catholics do that on a regular basis. Rewriting the Bible as it suits them to add in bullshit like Limbo, purgatory and allow themselves to sell indulgences.<br> <br>

The idea of Papal supremacy isn't really that far fetched in that light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In essence , the Roman Catholics do that on a regular basis .
Rewriting the Bible as it suits them to add in bullshit like Limbo , purgatory and allow themselves to sell indulgences .
The idea of Papal supremacy is n't really that far fetched in that light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In essence, the Roman Catholics do that on a regular basis.
Rewriting the Bible as it suits them to add in bullshit like Limbo, purgatory and allow themselves to sell indulgences.
The idea of Papal supremacy isn't really that far fetched in that light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509612</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261338240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.</p></div><p>The 2000 year old one isn't copyrighted. Unfortunately, those were also written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic and the majority of the world population can not read or translate those languages (especially when you also have to add in the fact that they are "ancient" variants, much like the difference between "olde English" and modern...). The various translated versions are copyrighted based on their translation and arrangement dates. Periodically, they get slightly different translations, especially when sections could be interpreted different ways, and thus a new copyright date is born. Many modern versions will also put specific "mistakes" in them so that if someone copies it, they can show that they based it on that particular work and have evidence that they breached the copyright. Got to love it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still do n't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.The 2000 year old one is n't copyrighted .
Unfortunately , those were also written in Hebrew , Greek , or Aramaic and the majority of the world population can not read or translate those languages ( especially when you also have to add in the fact that they are " ancient " variants , much like the difference between " olde English " and modern... ) .
The various translated versions are copyrighted based on their translation and arrangement dates .
Periodically , they get slightly different translations , especially when sections could be interpreted different ways , and thus a new copyright date is born .
Many modern versions will also put specific " mistakes " in them so that if someone copies it , they can show that they based it on that particular work and have evidence that they breached the copyright .
Got to love it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.The 2000 year old one isn't copyrighted.
Unfortunately, those were also written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic and the majority of the world population can not read or translate those languages (especially when you also have to add in the fact that they are "ancient" variants, much like the difference between "olde English" and modern...).
The various translated versions are copyrighted based on their translation and arrangement dates.
Periodically, they get slightly different translations, especially when sections could be interpreted different ways, and thus a new copyright date is born.
Many modern versions will also put specific "mistakes" in them so that if someone copies it, they can show that they based it on that particular work and have evidence that they breached the copyright.
Got to love it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30515988</id>
	<title>Re:no big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261429140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim</p><p>You forgot to make the obligatory Slashdot statement talking about how much you hate Christianity, so your "facts" don't count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I have n't been able to find the actual Vatican statement , but as the news accounts describe it , it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claimYou forgot to make the obligatory Slashdot statement talking about how much you hate Christianity , so your " facts " do n't count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claimYou forgot to make the obligatory Slashdot statement talking about how much you hate Christianity, so your "facts" don't count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509636</id>
	<title>declare all you want</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1261338780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately, the dark ages are over and nobody has to give a damn anymore what the Pope says or thinks, and we can use his name and his image like that of any actor, politician, dictator, or common criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , the dark ages are over and nobody has to give a damn anymore what the Pope says or thinks , and we can use his name and his image like that of any actor , politician , dictator , or common criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, the dark ages are over and nobody has to give a damn anymore what the Pope says or thinks, and we can use his name and his image like that of any actor, politician, dictator, or common criminal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509212</id>
	<title>Holy See?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What language is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What language is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What language is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509132</id>
	<title>Painter Francis Bacon</title>
	<author>certron</author>
	<datestamp>1261331340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I heard of this, the first thing that came to mind was the painter Francis Bacon and his "Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X" otherwise known as the 'screaming pope'. Have fun with that. I suspect they may only want to exercise their supposed copyright claim and control over a very narrow area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I heard of this , the first thing that came to mind was the painter Francis Bacon and his " Study after Velazquez 's Portrait of Pope Innocent X " otherwise known as the 'screaming pope' .
Have fun with that .
I suspect they may only want to exercise their supposed copyright claim and control over a very narrow area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I heard of this, the first thing that came to mind was the painter Francis Bacon and his "Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X" otherwise known as the 'screaming pope'.
Have fun with that.
I suspect they may only want to exercise their supposed copyright claim and control over a very narrow area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509908</id>
	<title>Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1261386720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Church did have a DRM of sorts though: Latin. The common man couldn't read the Bible and had to take the priest's word for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Church did have a DRM of sorts though : Latin .
The common man could n't read the Bible and had to take the priest 's word for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Church did have a DRM of sorts though: Latin.
The common man couldn't read the Bible and had to take the priest's word for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509032</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>Achromatic1978</author>
	<datestamp>1261330200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacy</p></div></blockquote><p>Supremacy? No, but they do claim infallibility. From WP:</p><blockquote><div><p>Over the centuries, popes' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed, culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra (literally "from the chair (of Peter)") to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals.[2] The first (after the proclamation) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950, with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.</p></div></blockquote><p>
PS: Slashdot, fix the fucking comment box.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacySupremacy ?
No , but they do claim infallibility .
From WP : Over the centuries , popes ' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed , culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra ( literally " from the chair ( of Peter ) " ) to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals .
[ 2 ] The first ( after the proclamation ) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950 , with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary .
PS : Slashdot , fix the fucking comment box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacySupremacy?
No, but they do claim infallibility.
From WP:Over the centuries, popes' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed, culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra (literally "from the chair (of Peter)") to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals.
[2] The first (after the proclamation) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950, with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.
PS: Slashdot, fix the fucking comment box.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509506</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261336380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it won't.</p><p>Followers of this particular flavor of mythology won't step out of line much, that's just how it works.</p><p>It <i>might</i> become a point of contention when it comes to "external" relationships...but however this pans out it will be beneficent for Vatican. Either it will reaffirm their position and authority <i>or</i> it will make the followers feel singled out, struggling against outside world. And this usually makes people more abhorrent; such little unease not only falls in line with the story, it also solidifies the group against disturbances (what, you don't think such little silliness makes people stop bending themselves to what shaped large part of their life?)</p><p>It's similar (though in much lesser degree) to the effects of repression of sexual life. In itself it's irrelevant. But it's in competition with very powerful force in all of us. If something manages to make you repress it, that something likely will have a grip on you for the rest of your life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it wo n't.Followers of this particular flavor of mythology wo n't step out of line much , that 's just how it works.It might become a point of contention when it comes to " external " relationships...but however this pans out it will be beneficent for Vatican .
Either it will reaffirm their position and authority or it will make the followers feel singled out , struggling against outside world .
And this usually makes people more abhorrent ; such little unease not only falls in line with the story , it also solidifies the group against disturbances ( what , you do n't think such little silliness makes people stop bending themselves to what shaped large part of their life ?
) It 's similar ( though in much lesser degree ) to the effects of repression of sexual life .
In itself it 's irrelevant .
But it 's in competition with very powerful force in all of us .
If something manages to make you repress it , that something likely will have a grip on you for the rest of your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it won't.Followers of this particular flavor of mythology won't step out of line much, that's just how it works.It might become a point of contention when it comes to "external" relationships...but however this pans out it will be beneficent for Vatican.
Either it will reaffirm their position and authority or it will make the followers feel singled out, struggling against outside world.
And this usually makes people more abhorrent; such little unease not only falls in line with the story, it also solidifies the group against disturbances (what, you don't think such little silliness makes people stop bending themselves to what shaped large part of their life?
)It's similar (though in much lesser degree) to the effects of repression of sexual life.
In itself it's irrelevant.
But it's in competition with very powerful force in all of us.
If something manages to make you repress it, that something likely will have a grip on you for the rest of your life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886</id>
	<title>Re:Please keep in mind</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1261328940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Yeah, I was going to say, isn't the Catholic church infringing on Gods copyright, unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacy. </p><p> Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively. </p><p> Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology, rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human social 'evolution'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I was going to say , is n't the Catholic church infringing on Gods copyright , unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacy .
Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively .
Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology , rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human social 'evolution' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Yeah, I was going to say, isn't the Catholic church infringing on Gods copyright, unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacy.
Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively.
Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology, rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human social 'evolution'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509322</id>
	<title>Re:Legit use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261333860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is that &ldquo;legitimate&rdquo;? The vatican has &ldquo;set themselves up as the pope&rdquo; too, you know, with no greater legitimacy apart from thousands of years of theft, extortion, and deceit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that    legitimate    ?
The vatican has    set themselves up as the pope    too , you know , with no greater legitimacy apart from thousands of years of theft , extortion , and deceit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that “legitimate”?
The vatican has “set themselves up as the pope” too, you know, with no greater legitimacy apart from thousands of years of theft, extortion, and deceit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508896</id>
	<title>Re:Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the first thing I thought of too.  Once religion hits copyright, the shit hits the fan.  If you want to claim some sort of divine connection, fine, but that should also mean that every aspect of your religion is open to the interpretation of, well, everyone.  Bob down the street can claim to be the next divinely chosen pope/profit/whatever.  Of course, with organized religion, you've already got that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the first thing I thought of too .
Once religion hits copyright , the shit hits the fan .
If you want to claim some sort of divine connection , fine , but that should also mean that every aspect of your religion is open to the interpretation of , well , everyone .
Bob down the street can claim to be the next divinely chosen pope/profit/whatever .
Of course , with organized religion , you 've already got that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the first thing I thought of too.
Once religion hits copyright, the shit hits the fan.
If you want to claim some sort of divine connection, fine, but that should also mean that every aspect of your religion is open to the interpretation of, well, everyone.
Bob down the street can claim to be the next divinely chosen pope/profit/whatever.
Of course, with organized religion, you've already got that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510992</id>
	<title>This would be unconstitutional in many countries</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1261402560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any country that guarantees freedom in their constitutions would not be able to enforce this.  Any nutjob who wants to could call himself the pope and start his own church.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any country that guarantees freedom in their constitutions would not be able to enforce this .
Any nutjob who wants to could call himself the pope and start his own church .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any country that guarantees freedom in their constitutions would not be able to enforce this.
Any nutjob who wants to could call himself the pope and start his own church.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511544</id>
	<title>Re:Scope</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1261407840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IP Lawyers? Unfortunately, the Pope doesn't have access to them, considering that they've all been condemned to the firey pits of hell! Of course, one doesn't need IP Lawyers when all you have to do is ask God to smite all of the copyright "pirates" for you! Maybe CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal should each do 100 Hail Mary's to avoid being smitten?</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP Lawyers ?
Unfortunately , the Pope does n't have access to them , considering that they 've all been condemned to the firey pits of hell !
Of course , one does n't need IP Lawyers when all you have to do is ask God to smite all of the copyright " pirates " for you !
Maybe CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal should each do 100 Hail Mary 's to avoid being smitten ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP Lawyers?
Unfortunately, the Pope doesn't have access to them, considering that they've all been condemned to the firey pits of hell!
Of course, one doesn't need IP Lawyers when all you have to do is ask God to smite all of the copyright "pirates" for you!
Maybe CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal should each do 100 Hail Mary's to avoid being smitten?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509174</id>
	<title>Nah, they were first</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1261331700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The church has always had this thing about controlling information. They kept the bible and mass in Latin for a very long time which is just the most obvious example of controlling information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The church has always had this thing about controlling information .
They kept the bible and mass in Latin for a very long time which is just the most obvious example of controlling information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The church has always had this thing about controlling information.
They kept the bible and mass in Latin for a very long time which is just the most obvious example of controlling information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509104</id>
	<title>Obligatory Simpsons quote</title>
	<author>SoVeryTired</author>
	<datestamp>1261331040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...authorities say the phony pope can be recognized by his hightop sneakers and incredibly foul mouth"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...authorities say the phony pope can be recognized by his hightop sneakers and incredibly foul mouth "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...authorities say the phony pope can be recognized by his hightop sneakers and incredibly foul mouth"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30516284</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1261387260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tux is somebody's copyright, and I think it's trademarked as well.  Believe it or not "open source" is trademarked, but fortunately by the good guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tux is somebody 's copyright , and I think it 's trademarked as well .
Believe it or not " open source " is trademarked , but fortunately by the good guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tux is somebody's copyright, and I think it's trademarked as well.
Believe it or not "open source" is trademarked, but fortunately by the good guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511144</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1261404720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Trademarks are a different story.</p></div> </blockquote><p>So come and get me, coppers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trademarks are a different story .
So come and get me , coppers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trademarks are a different story.
So come and get me, coppers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509990</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps the world is now ready for PRM</title>
	<author>ihuntrocks</author>
	<datestamp>1261387980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe they tried that once. If I recall correctly, we term that the Dark Ages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe they tried that once .
If I recall correctly , we term that the Dark Ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe they tried that once.
If I recall correctly, we term that the Dark Ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509114</id>
	<title>Not a real religion anyway...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just futher proof that they are in fact just a business trying to make a buck...  A true religion doesn't need BILLIONS of dollars to play with while watching the worlds poor suffer and die of starvation.  They are all scam artists and should be put in prison for the crooks they are!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just futher proof that they are in fact just a business trying to make a buck... A true religion does n't need BILLIONS of dollars to play with while watching the worlds poor suffer and die of starvation .
They are all scam artists and should be put in prison for the crooks they are !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just futher proof that they are in fact just a business trying to make a buck...  A true religion doesn't need BILLIONS of dollars to play with while watching the worlds poor suffer and die of starvation.
They are all scam artists and should be put in prison for the crooks they are!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509070</id>
	<title>Re:Simply following the Scientologists,</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1261330620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not so sure I'd use the word "effective".  Or "manage" really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not so sure I 'd use the word " effective " .
Or " manage " really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not so sure I'd use the word "effective".
Or "manage" really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834</id>
	<title>Scope</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1261328520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well okay but where does this apply, other than in the Vatican?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well okay but where does this apply , other than in the Vatican ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well okay but where does this apply, other than in the Vatican?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510570</id>
	<title>Rebranding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261396860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, they may claim that.</p><p>How about Slashdot just starts  referring to the Pope as the poop?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they may claim that.How about Slashdot just starts referring to the Pope as the poop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they may claim that.How about Slashdot just starts  referring to the Pope as the poop?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510500</id>
	<title>But how much room will they allow for fair use?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1261395840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares?  The copyright/trademark holder doesn't get to make this decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
The copyright/trademark holder does n't get to make this decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
The copyright/trademark holder doesn't get to make this decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510446</id>
	<title>High school newspapers' Vatican News column</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261394880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509218</id>
	<title>Without prior permission to "pontificate"</title>
	<author>The Second Horseman</author>
	<datestamp>1261332420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will any of us be able to contribute to Slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will any of us be able to contribute to Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will any of us be able to contribute to Slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30519748</id>
	<title>Just re-name/gender/title him!</title>
	<author>brindafella</author>
	<datestamp>1261410360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In a move supported by a pareto of cardinals, Pope Bernadette XVI has 'come out' as the first transgendered pontif."

</p><p>Her Holiness was quick to say, "This does not mean that I am a transvestite! I just <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pope\_Benedictus\_XVI\_january,20\_2006\_(2).JPG" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wear dresses</a> [wikipedia.org]!"

</p><p>"I have decided to add another title to my <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Official\_list\_of\_titles" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">list</a> [wikipedia.org]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole\_of\_the\_Bailey#Series\_cast" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">She Who Must Be Obeyed</a> [wikipedia.org]," she said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In a move supported by a pareto of cardinals , Pope Bernadette XVI has 'come out ' as the first transgendered pontif .
" Her Holiness was quick to say , " This does not mean that I am a transvestite !
I just wear dresses [ wikipedia.org ] !
" " I have decided to add another title to my list [ wikipedia.org ] : She Who Must Be Obeyed [ wikipedia.org ] , " she said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In a move supported by a pareto of cardinals, Pope Bernadette XVI has 'come out' as the first transgendered pontif.
"

Her Holiness was quick to say, "This does not mean that I am a transvestite!
I just wear dresses [wikipedia.org]!
"

"I have decided to add another title to my list [wikipedia.org]: She Who Must Be Obeyed [wikipedia.org]," she said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508868</id>
	<title>Interesting idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next, those nativity scenes they try and throw up every winter will be declared illegal now because they haven't paid to license it from God. Atheists, you may now stop attempting to keep the church and state separate: Apparently, God has made himself illegal. Film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next , those nativity scenes they try and throw up every winter will be declared illegal now because they have n't paid to license it from God .
Atheists , you may now stop attempting to keep the church and state separate : Apparently , God has made himself illegal .
Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next, those nativity scenes they try and throw up every winter will be declared illegal now because they haven't paid to license it from God.
Atheists, you may now stop attempting to keep the church and state separate: Apparently, God has made himself illegal.
Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508854</id>
	<title>prior art?</title>
	<author>nephridium</author>
	<datestamp>1261328640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing the pictures <a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=pope+emperor" title="google.com">here</a> [google.com] I believe there is a reasonably case for prior art, no? If anything the Vatican should pay George Lucas, as he has 25 years on them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br> <br>

That being said imho the emperor from the Empire strikes back looked much more formidable, the pope should have gone with that look instead...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing the pictures here [ google.com ] I believe there is a reasonably case for prior art , no ?
If anything the Vatican should pay George Lucas , as he has 25 years on them ; ) That being said imho the emperor from the Empire strikes back looked much more formidable , the pope should have gone with that look instead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing the pictures here [google.com] I believe there is a reasonably case for prior art, no?
If anything the Vatican should pay George Lucas, as he has 25 years on them ;) 

That being said imho the emperor from the Empire strikes back looked much more formidable, the pope should have gone with that look instead...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509760</id>
	<title>Re:they don't need copyright for this</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1261427580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Trademark != Copyright.</p><p>2) The Berne Convention already handles that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Trademark ! = Copyright.2 ) The Berne Convention already handles that .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Trademark != Copyright.2) The Berne Convention already handles that.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512034</id>
	<title>Please copyright other things</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1261410720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an idea for a few other things I'd like to see copyrighted. Please, someone, copyright these phrases and forbid any public performances:</p><ol><li>You're going to hell!</li><li>God hates \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (just a generic copyright on anything that follows that pattern, please)</li><li>judeochristian (this religious right's answer to "I have a black friend")</li><li>I have a black friend</li><li>think outside the box (off-topic, but still annoying)</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an idea for a few other things I 'd like to see copyrighted .
Please , someone , copyright these phrases and forbid any public performances : You 're going to hell ! God hates \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ( just a generic copyright on anything that follows that pattern , please ) judeochristian ( this religious right 's answer to " I have a black friend " ) I have a black friendthink outside the box ( off-topic , but still annoying )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an idea for a few other things I'd like to see copyrighted.
Please, someone, copyright these phrases and forbid any public performances:You're going to hell!God hates \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (just a generic copyright on anything that follows that pattern, please)judeochristian (this religious right's answer to "I have a black friend")I have a black friendthink outside the box (off-topic, but still annoying)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509718</id>
	<title>Re:This definitely</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1261426680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>won't have ANY negative ramifications...</p></div><p>Why would it?  How is this in any way different to any other official entity (be it a company, the government, non-profit organisation, or anything else) from claiming copyright over its own logos and symbols.  Even "Fair Trade", "Oxfam", and "National Heart Foundation" symbols are copyright.  Funnily enough, I can't label this post as "officially endorsed by Bob Geldof" without his permission either, nor can I whack the "National Heart Foundation Approved" logo on it without their permission.  (Of course, usual fair use / fair dealing exemptions from copyright in your jurisdiction continue to apply).</p><p>So would I be alone in asking "where is the story in this"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>wo n't have ANY negative ramifications...Why would it ?
How is this in any way different to any other official entity ( be it a company , the government , non-profit organisation , or anything else ) from claiming copyright over its own logos and symbols .
Even " Fair Trade " , " Oxfam " , and " National Heart Foundation " symbols are copyright .
Funnily enough , I ca n't label this post as " officially endorsed by Bob Geldof " without his permission either , nor can I whack the " National Heart Foundation Approved " logo on it without their permission .
( Of course , usual fair use / fair dealing exemptions from copyright in your jurisdiction continue to apply ) .So would I be alone in asking " where is the story in this " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>won't have ANY negative ramifications...Why would it?
How is this in any way different to any other official entity (be it a company, the government, non-profit organisation, or anything else) from claiming copyright over its own logos and symbols.
Even "Fair Trade", "Oxfam", and "National Heart Foundation" symbols are copyright.
Funnily enough, I can't label this post as "officially endorsed by Bob Geldof" without his permission either, nor can I whack the "National Heart Foundation Approved" logo on it without their permission.
(Of course, usual fair use / fair dealing exemptions from copyright in your jurisdiction continue to apply).So would I be alone in asking "where is the story in this"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509024</id>
	<title>Terrible article</title>
	<author>coppro</author>
	<datestamp>1261330080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ugh... I wish people would stop mixing up the difference between trademark and copyright. Notwithstanding that the Vatican is a sovereign state and can do whatever the heck it wants within its boundaries, what they're really declaring is that the trademark of the Pope is going to be reserved for their exclusive use. Copyright isn't even involved here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh... I wish people would stop mixing up the difference between trademark and copyright .
Notwithstanding that the Vatican is a sovereign state and can do whatever the heck it wants within its boundaries , what they 're really declaring is that the trademark of the Pope is going to be reserved for their exclusive use .
Copyright is n't even involved here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh... I wish people would stop mixing up the difference between trademark and copyright.
Notwithstanding that the Vatican is a sovereign state and can do whatever the heck it wants within its boundaries, what they're really declaring is that the trademark of the Pope is going to be reserved for their exclusive use.
Copyright isn't even involved here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30536918</id>
	<title>Genesis</title>
	<author>JakartaDean</author>
	<datestamp>1259779680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So God created gigantic sea creatures, and made the waters teem with every moving creature after its kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God approved it because it was good.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>The largest of sea creatures included more than the great whales. They also included several species of marine dinosaurs, at least two of which (the Loch Ness creature and "Predator X", identified in the Bible as "Leviathan") survived the Great Flood.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Maybe I haven't been following the story, but Right-wing conservative canon now includes the Loch Ness Monster?  Get out of town, this is getting too easy...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So God created gigantic sea creatures , and made the waters teem with every moving creature after its kind , and every winged bird after its kind .
God approved it because it was good.The largest of sea creatures included more than the great whales .
They also included several species of marine dinosaurs , at least two of which ( the Loch Ness creature and " Predator X " , identified in the Bible as " Leviathan " ) survived the Great Flood .
Maybe I have n't been following the story , but Right-wing conservative canon now includes the Loch Ness Monster ?
Get out of town , this is getting too easy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So God created gigantic sea creatures, and made the waters teem with every moving creature after its kind, and every winged bird after its kind.
God approved it because it was good.The largest of sea creatures included more than the great whales.
They also included several species of marine dinosaurs, at least two of which (the Loch Ness creature and "Predator X", identified in the Bible as "Leviathan") survived the Great Flood.
Maybe I haven't been following the story, but Right-wing conservative canon now includes the Loch Ness Monster?
Get out of town, this is getting too easy...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509386</id>
	<title>trademark or copyright?</title>
	<author>nulldaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1261334760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright? It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark (the Pope).</p><p>I actually agree with their reasoning too -- they don't want people leveraging their symbols for politcal, social or economical reasons unless they really do have the support of the church. Sounds fair enough to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright ?
It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark ( the Pope ) .I actually agree with their reasoning too -- they do n't want people leveraging their symbols for politcal , social or economical reasons unless they really do have the support of the church .
Sounds fair enough to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright?
It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark (the Pope).I actually agree with their reasoning too -- they don't want people leveraging their symbols for politcal, social or economical reasons unless they really do have the support of the church.
Sounds fair enough to me...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509784</id>
	<title>What about the Greek Orthodox Church ?</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1261428000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't they have their own pope ? Will they challenge this ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they have their own pope ?
Will they challenge this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they have their own pope ?
Will they challenge this ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509770</id>
	<title>Re:Power Mad Papa</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1261427700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, except for the fact that you confused copyright with trademark... and the fact that kdawson screwed up as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , except for the fact that you confused copyright with trademark... and the fact that kdawson screwed up as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, except for the fact that you confused copyright with trademark... and the fact that kdawson screwed up as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509044</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30520480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30515622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30517060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30516284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30521990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30515988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2117230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30515622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30516284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30521990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30515988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509682
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30514338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509032
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30517060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30512114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30520480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30511464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30510992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30508880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2117230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2117230.30509322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
