<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_24_1334212</id>
	<title>The Science of <em>Avatar</em></title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1261665060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Jamie noted a bit on
<a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440">The Science of <em>Avatar</em></a> running on Ain't it Cool, written by a professor of astrophysics who has worked on searching for planets and SETI. I believe I might be the last person on earth who hasn't seen it; here's hoping I can find 3 free hours over the holidays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jamie noted a bit on The Science of Avatar running on Ai n't it Cool , written by a professor of astrophysics who has worked on searching for planets and SETI .
I believe I might be the last person on earth who has n't seen it ; here 's hoping I can find 3 free hours over the holidays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jamie noted a bit on
The Science of Avatar running on Ain't it Cool, written by a professor of astrophysics who has worked on searching for planets and SETI.
I believe I might be the last person on earth who hasn't seen it; here's hoping I can find 3 free hours over the holidays.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544052</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261671540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're going to judge it before you've even seen it? &lt;tiptoes off of lawn...&gt;<br> <br>I saw it, and I think it was a great movie. It's not Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. It's a *simple* story, painted in primary colors. Don't confuse that with <i>bad</i> ( Come to think of it, some of Shakespeare's stories were rather simple -- <i>Romeo and Juliet</i>, anyone?). The effects are also good, and are masterfully woven into the story, not just there for no reason ( Except for Cameron's canonical human in robot-suit versus giant living organism. I think it's his leitmotif of man+technology versus nature, so it kind of summarizes the whole film, one could argue.) <br> <br>Hollywood will make crap movies regardless of what Cameron does. This one is good. See it in 3D; it's not just a gimmick, it aids in your immersion into a fictional world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're going to judge it before you 've even seen it ?
I saw it , and I think it was a great movie .
It 's not Shakespeare or Dostoevsky .
It 's a * simple * story , painted in primary colors .
Do n't confuse that with bad ( Come to think of it , some of Shakespeare 's stories were rather simple -- Romeo and Juliet , anyone ? ) .
The effects are also good , and are masterfully woven into the story , not just there for no reason ( Except for Cameron 's canonical human in robot-suit versus giant living organism .
I think it 's his leitmotif of man + technology versus nature , so it kind of summarizes the whole film , one could argue .
) Hollywood will make crap movies regardless of what Cameron does .
This one is good .
See it in 3D ; it 's not just a gimmick , it aids in your immersion into a fictional world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're going to judge it before you've even seen it?
I saw it, and I think it was a great movie.
It's not Shakespeare or Dostoevsky.
It's a *simple* story, painted in primary colors.
Don't confuse that with bad ( Come to think of it, some of Shakespeare's stories were rather simple -- Romeo and Juliet, anyone?).
The effects are also good, and are masterfully woven into the story, not just there for no reason ( Except for Cameron's canonical human in robot-suit versus giant living organism.
I think it's his leitmotif of man+technology versus nature, so it kind of summarizes the whole film, one could argue.
)  Hollywood will make crap movies regardless of what Cameron does.
This one is good.
See it in 3D; it's not just a gimmick, it aids in your immersion into a fictional world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544316</id>
	<title>You are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261673160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...not. I have no plans to see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...not .
I have no plans to see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...not.
I have no plans to see it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547004</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>colmore</author>
	<datestamp>1261650000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still have to believe that the movie could have had ONE interesting character.</p><p>The next great advance in special effects will be to free people from green screens.  The acting is always terrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still have to believe that the movie could have had ONE interesting character.The next great advance in special effects will be to free people from green screens .
The acting is always terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still have to believe that the movie could have had ONE interesting character.The next great advance in special effects will be to free people from green screens.
The acting is always terrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543888</id>
	<title>You aren't missing anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261670160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine one of those cheesy SciFi channel Saturday evening low budget science fiction movies on a $300 million dollar budget.  That's what Avatar is.

Sure the acting is decent and the special effects are spectacular - but the story is boring and predictable.  (Come on, 'unobtainium'?)  It's as if James Cameron and Disney tried to Westernize a Japanese RPG storyline.<br> <br>

As for the science, well...if you're a neurobiologist with a flare for xenobiology, I'm sure this is a very interesting story.  Otherwise, all the technology ranges from "reasonably possible in the not too distant future" to "still very much science fiction".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine one of those cheesy SciFi channel Saturday evening low budget science fiction movies on a $ 300 million dollar budget .
That 's what Avatar is .
Sure the acting is decent and the special effects are spectacular - but the story is boring and predictable .
( Come on , 'unobtainium ' ?
) It 's as if James Cameron and Disney tried to Westernize a Japanese RPG storyline .
As for the science , well...if you 're a neurobiologist with a flare for xenobiology , I 'm sure this is a very interesting story .
Otherwise , all the technology ranges from " reasonably possible in the not too distant future " to " still very much science fiction " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine one of those cheesy SciFi channel Saturday evening low budget science fiction movies on a $300 million dollar budget.
That's what Avatar is.
Sure the acting is decent and the special effects are spectacular - but the story is boring and predictable.
(Come on, 'unobtainium'?
)  It's as if James Cameron and Disney tried to Westernize a Japanese RPG storyline.
As for the science, well...if you're a neurobiologist with a flare for xenobiology, I'm sure this is a very interesting story.
Otherwise, all the technology ranges from "reasonably possible in the not too distant future" to "still very much science fiction".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30621134</id>
	<title>Re:Pre or POST industrial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230897660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, very insightful. So in the end, humanity is the real savage here. I like the irony involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , very insightful .
So in the end , humanity is the real savage here .
I like the irony involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, very insightful.
So in the end, humanity is the real savage here.
I like the irony involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545836</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1261682760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; Yeah, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.
</p><p>
Right, exactly.  And that's why every showing of Avatar was packed, and why Hollywood in general is having a banner year.  It's because they all have camcorders pointing at the screen so the rest of us can stay home and... no wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Yeah , nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents .
Right , exactly .
And that 's why every showing of Avatar was packed , and why Hollywood in general is having a banner year .
It 's because they all have camcorders pointing at the screen so the rest of us can stay home and... no wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; Yeah, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.
Right, exactly.
And that's why every showing of Avatar was packed, and why Hollywood in general is having a banner year.
It's because they all have camcorders pointing at the screen so the rest of us can stay home and... no wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543966</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is full of flaws itself</title>
	<author>sackvillian</author>
	<datestamp>1261670700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, and he said this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I do have one minor complaint, that given their networking abilities,
the Na&rsquo;vi should not be so technologically inferior to the humans.</p> </div><p>That ignores the reason humans first started developing significant technology; the agricultural revolution.  That was the point when we extracted ourselves from nature and took over control of food.  That's what allowed us to create advanced settlements and the rest is (pre-)history, as they say.</p><p>See the philosophical novel <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael\_(novel)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Ishmael</a> [wikipedia.org] for the basis of this argument.</p><p>Given the "living in harmony with nature" theme in the movie, one could hardly expect the Na'vi to have done the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , and he said this : I do have one minor complaint , that given their networking abilities , the Na    vi should not be so technologically inferior to the humans .
That ignores the reason humans first started developing significant technology ; the agricultural revolution .
That was the point when we extracted ourselves from nature and took over control of food .
That 's what allowed us to create advanced settlements and the rest is ( pre- ) history , as they say.See the philosophical novel Ishmael [ wikipedia.org ] for the basis of this argument.Given the " living in harmony with nature " theme in the movie , one could hardly expect the Na'vi to have done the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, and he said this:I do have one minor complaint, that given their networking abilities,
the Na’vi should not be so technologically inferior to the humans.
That ignores the reason humans first started developing significant technology; the agricultural revolution.
That was the point when we extracted ourselves from nature and took over control of food.
That's what allowed us to create advanced settlements and the rest is (pre-)history, as they say.See the philosophical novel Ishmael [wikipedia.org] for the basis of this argument.Given the "living in harmony with nature" theme in the movie, one could hardly expect the Na'vi to have done the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546380</id>
	<title>I liked it</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1261687200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The effects were spectacular, the score was ok.  The plot?  A little thin, but for a kid movie not too bad.  My kids ate it up and they want to go back.  I could sit through it a second time just for the visuals and I never go to a movie twice.  I saw it in digital 3D and I recommend that.
</p><p>The science?  You want actual science in a science fiction movie?  That's cute.  Science fiction isn't about the science - it's a prop to aid in dissociating you from your daily grind so as to focus better on the people.  Good stories are always about people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The effects were spectacular , the score was ok. The plot ?
A little thin , but for a kid movie not too bad .
My kids ate it up and they want to go back .
I could sit through it a second time just for the visuals and I never go to a movie twice .
I saw it in digital 3D and I recommend that .
The science ?
You want actual science in a science fiction movie ?
That 's cute .
Science fiction is n't about the science - it 's a prop to aid in dissociating you from your daily grind so as to focus better on the people .
Good stories are always about people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The effects were spectacular, the score was ok.  The plot?
A little thin, but for a kid movie not too bad.
My kids ate it up and they want to go back.
I could sit through it a second time just for the visuals and I never go to a movie twice.
I saw it in digital 3D and I recommend that.
The science?
You want actual science in a science fiction movie?
That's cute.
Science fiction isn't about the science - it's a prop to aid in dissociating you from your daily grind so as to focus better on the people.
Good stories are always about people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1261669920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to see it that bad, go by yourself. Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people, screaming babies, filthy floors, cramped seats, blocked views, terrible traffic, and insufficient parking. Yeah, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to see it that bad , go by yourself .
Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people , screaming babies , filthy floors , cramped seats , blocked views , terrible traffic , and insufficient parking .
Yeah , nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to see it that bad, go by yourself.
Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people, screaming babies, filthy floors, cramped seats, blocked views, terrible traffic, and insufficient parking.
Yeah, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548616</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>ilyag</author>
	<datestamp>1261668240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just want to point out that the movie has more merits than just the visuals. The design of <i>everything</i> is pitch perfect: every little detail of every little machine of the humans (or the giant spaceship they came in), every little creature of the alien jungle, even details of the culture of the natives are very well thought out, even the physics works better than in almost any other sci-fy movie I've seen. The whole enviroment of the alien world feels entirely believable, you truly feel immersed in it.</p><p>On the other hand, you are right that the plot is terrible. The charaters are bad, they don't even act like live people, and you can<br>predict what will happen 20 minutes into the movie. However, this does not change the fact that the movie is amazing - just think of it as a safari into an alien jungle.</p><p>This does, however, surprise me. Everything else in the movie is darn near perfect, why couldn't they put a tiny bit of effort into the scriptwriting? The same setting could house an amazing plot. If the authors thought that the plot is not the point, as I think they did, why couldn't they at least have a sense of humor about this? After all, they do poke fun at the one piece of physics that doesn't work, the "unobtanium"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want to point out that the movie has more merits than just the visuals .
The design of everything is pitch perfect : every little detail of every little machine of the humans ( or the giant spaceship they came in ) , every little creature of the alien jungle , even details of the culture of the natives are very well thought out , even the physics works better than in almost any other sci-fy movie I 've seen .
The whole enviroment of the alien world feels entirely believable , you truly feel immersed in it.On the other hand , you are right that the plot is terrible .
The charaters are bad , they do n't even act like live people , and you canpredict what will happen 20 minutes into the movie .
However , this does not change the fact that the movie is amazing - just think of it as a safari into an alien jungle.This does , however , surprise me .
Everything else in the movie is darn near perfect , why could n't they put a tiny bit of effort into the scriptwriting ?
The same setting could house an amazing plot .
If the authors thought that the plot is not the point , as I think they did , why could n't they at least have a sense of humor about this ?
After all , they do poke fun at the one piece of physics that does n't work , the " unobtanium " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want to point out that the movie has more merits than just the visuals.
The design of everything is pitch perfect: every little detail of every little machine of the humans (or the giant spaceship they came in), every little creature of the alien jungle, even details of the culture of the natives are very well thought out, even the physics works better than in almost any other sci-fy movie I've seen.
The whole enviroment of the alien world feels entirely believable, you truly feel immersed in it.On the other hand, you are right that the plot is terrible.
The charaters are bad, they don't even act like live people, and you canpredict what will happen 20 minutes into the movie.
However, this does not change the fact that the movie is amazing - just think of it as a safari into an alien jungle.This does, however, surprise me.
Everything else in the movie is darn near perfect, why couldn't they put a tiny bit of effort into the scriptwriting?
The same setting could house an amazing plot.
If the authors thought that the plot is not the point, as I think they did, why couldn't they at least have a sense of humor about this?
After all, they do poke fun at the one piece of physics that doesn't work, the "unobtanium"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546370</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1261687140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, get over it (and yourself).  We just need something at least half decent to do better than Twilight: New Moon.  Now THAT is a tragedy right there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , get over it ( and yourself ) .
We just need something at least half decent to do better than Twilight : New Moon .
Now THAT is a tragedy right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, get over it (and yourself).
We just need something at least half decent to do better than Twilight: New Moon.
Now THAT is a tragedy right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543854</id>
	<title>I haven't seen it either.</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1261669980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't seen it, and I'm not planning on it.  You can't just take Dances with Smurfs and call it something else!  That's not kewwwwwwwwww'!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen it , and I 'm not planning on it .
You ca n't just take Dances with Smurfs and call it something else !
That 's not kewwwwwwwwww ' !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen it, and I'm not planning on it.
You can't just take Dances with Smurfs and call it something else!
That's not kewwwwwwwwww'!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544996</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>G-Man</author>
	<datestamp>1261677420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking your gripes out of order:</p><p>Craft: On the contrary, Cameron can still direct a hell of an action sequence, and he and his crew have extraordinary craft. Not just Pandora's CGI, but translating a motion capture performance from a real actor. The actors are also pretty good across the board, no one's performance grated. They were up to the material. The material itself on the other hand...</p><p>Plot and Character Development: My biggest gripe isn't that it's basically 'Dances With Wolves' in space -- my gripe is that it *is* 'Dances With Wolves' in space. It's as if someone took the same script outline and said, "Okay, Kevin, you make the movie with Indians. James, you make it with aliens." Except, you know, Kevin's movie came out twenty years ago. I realize there are only so many basic stories, but not only did I know where they where they were going, I knew exactly how they were getting there. Nothing came as a surprise *at all*. Characters serve the same exact purpose in both movies - I half expected Jake's main rival to show up at the end of the movie on a six-legged horse on a cliff yelling "JakeSully! JakeSully! I am Wind In His Hair! Can you see you are my friend?! Can you see I will always be your friend?!"</p><p>Politics: I am going to attack Cameron's politics here, in ways you might expect and others you might not.</p><p>The half-white part of me is glad to know that in 150 years, no matter how jacked-up things are, evil white Americans will still run things. Emerging powers in Asia and elsewhere will have no cultural influence whatsoever - it will still be white guys in charge with a few Hispanics and Blacks thrown in for seasoning. Take THAT China and India!</p><p>The evil-human camp is shaped like a Pentagon. Subtle, James, subtle. (Note: If you want to make a Vauban-like star fortress, make one, or just make a rectangular military camp like we've done since Roman times.)</p><p>Even though modern helos have a fairly even high-pitched tone, helos in the future will once again have the same distinctive whop-whop sound that Hueys from Vietnam had. For a Boomer like Cameron, every fight in a jungle is Vietnam. "This is The End. My only friend...The End."</p><p>Despite white guys being the villains, only a white guy can lead you to victory - even if he is in a ten-foot tall blue body. You know, James, at the LIttle Big Horn, Geronimo wasn't a white guy that went Native, he was an actual Native. That is the part that ultimately grates for me, the patronizing attitude. Cameron is indulging the white liberal fantasy: riding to the rescue of an indigenous people and saving them from his own evil society, and in the end, being accepted as one of them. Cameron uses the highest of our film-making technology to critique us and our technology. The Na'vi get technology as a freebie - carbon-fiber skeletons and a databus connection to other living things. Well, sorry, but us humans have to work at that sort of thing.</p><p>Comic-Book Guy Critiques: You know, for the 'Sky People' we don't seem to know jack-shit about aerial combat. Apparently, we've forgotten stuff that Eddie Rickenbacker and Manfred von Richtofen figured out a century ago. Leaving aside that you could just drop stuff on the Na'vi from orbit, why do you come in low and slow so the enemy can jump you from above and behind? And why do you have helos, mechs, and transports, but no jet fighters? On a planet with the enemy riding around on pterodactyl-like critters, wouldn't it be nice to have some fast-movers that can fly above them?</p><p>All that aside, I say see it, and see it in 3D. Think of it less as a full movie and more as an amusement park ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking your gripes out of order : Craft : On the contrary , Cameron can still direct a hell of an action sequence , and he and his crew have extraordinary craft .
Not just Pandora 's CGI , but translating a motion capture performance from a real actor .
The actors are also pretty good across the board , no one 's performance grated .
They were up to the material .
The material itself on the other hand...Plot and Character Development : My biggest gripe is n't that it 's basically 'Dances With Wolves ' in space -- my gripe is that it * is * 'Dances With Wolves ' in space .
It 's as if someone took the same script outline and said , " Okay , Kevin , you make the movie with Indians .
James , you make it with aliens .
" Except , you know , Kevin 's movie came out twenty years ago .
I realize there are only so many basic stories , but not only did I know where they where they were going , I knew exactly how they were getting there .
Nothing came as a surprise * at all * .
Characters serve the same exact purpose in both movies - I half expected Jake 's main rival to show up at the end of the movie on a six-legged horse on a cliff yelling " JakeSully !
JakeSully ! I am Wind In His Hair !
Can you see you are my friend ? !
Can you see I will always be your friend ? !
" Politics : I am going to attack Cameron 's politics here , in ways you might expect and others you might not.The half-white part of me is glad to know that in 150 years , no matter how jacked-up things are , evil white Americans will still run things .
Emerging powers in Asia and elsewhere will have no cultural influence whatsoever - it will still be white guys in charge with a few Hispanics and Blacks thrown in for seasoning .
Take THAT China and India ! The evil-human camp is shaped like a Pentagon .
Subtle , James , subtle .
( Note : If you want to make a Vauban-like star fortress , make one , or just make a rectangular military camp like we 've done since Roman times .
) Even though modern helos have a fairly even high-pitched tone , helos in the future will once again have the same distinctive whop-whop sound that Hueys from Vietnam had .
For a Boomer like Cameron , every fight in a jungle is Vietnam .
" This is The End .
My only friend...The End .
" Despite white guys being the villains , only a white guy can lead you to victory - even if he is in a ten-foot tall blue body .
You know , James , at the LIttle Big Horn , Geronimo was n't a white guy that went Native , he was an actual Native .
That is the part that ultimately grates for me , the patronizing attitude .
Cameron is indulging the white liberal fantasy : riding to the rescue of an indigenous people and saving them from his own evil society , and in the end , being accepted as one of them .
Cameron uses the highest of our film-making technology to critique us and our technology .
The Na'vi get technology as a freebie - carbon-fiber skeletons and a databus connection to other living things .
Well , sorry , but us humans have to work at that sort of thing.Comic-Book Guy Critiques : You know , for the 'Sky People ' we do n't seem to know jack-shit about aerial combat .
Apparently , we 've forgotten stuff that Eddie Rickenbacker and Manfred von Richtofen figured out a century ago .
Leaving aside that you could just drop stuff on the Na'vi from orbit , why do you come in low and slow so the enemy can jump you from above and behind ?
And why do you have helos , mechs , and transports , but no jet fighters ?
On a planet with the enemy riding around on pterodactyl-like critters , would n't it be nice to have some fast-movers that can fly above them ? All that aside , I say see it , and see it in 3D .
Think of it less as a full movie and more as an amusement park ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking your gripes out of order:Craft: On the contrary, Cameron can still direct a hell of an action sequence, and he and his crew have extraordinary craft.
Not just Pandora's CGI, but translating a motion capture performance from a real actor.
The actors are also pretty good across the board, no one's performance grated.
They were up to the material.
The material itself on the other hand...Plot and Character Development: My biggest gripe isn't that it's basically 'Dances With Wolves' in space -- my gripe is that it *is* 'Dances With Wolves' in space.
It's as if someone took the same script outline and said, "Okay, Kevin, you make the movie with Indians.
James, you make it with aliens.
" Except, you know, Kevin's movie came out twenty years ago.
I realize there are only so many basic stories, but not only did I know where they where they were going, I knew exactly how they were getting there.
Nothing came as a surprise *at all*.
Characters serve the same exact purpose in both movies - I half expected Jake's main rival to show up at the end of the movie on a six-legged horse on a cliff yelling "JakeSully!
JakeSully! I am Wind In His Hair!
Can you see you are my friend?!
Can you see I will always be your friend?!
"Politics: I am going to attack Cameron's politics here, in ways you might expect and others you might not.The half-white part of me is glad to know that in 150 years, no matter how jacked-up things are, evil white Americans will still run things.
Emerging powers in Asia and elsewhere will have no cultural influence whatsoever - it will still be white guys in charge with a few Hispanics and Blacks thrown in for seasoning.
Take THAT China and India!The evil-human camp is shaped like a Pentagon.
Subtle, James, subtle.
(Note: If you want to make a Vauban-like star fortress, make one, or just make a rectangular military camp like we've done since Roman times.
)Even though modern helos have a fairly even high-pitched tone, helos in the future will once again have the same distinctive whop-whop sound that Hueys from Vietnam had.
For a Boomer like Cameron, every fight in a jungle is Vietnam.
"This is The End.
My only friend...The End.
"Despite white guys being the villains, only a white guy can lead you to victory - even if he is in a ten-foot tall blue body.
You know, James, at the LIttle Big Horn, Geronimo wasn't a white guy that went Native, he was an actual Native.
That is the part that ultimately grates for me, the patronizing attitude.
Cameron is indulging the white liberal fantasy: riding to the rescue of an indigenous people and saving them from his own evil society, and in the end, being accepted as one of them.
Cameron uses the highest of our film-making technology to critique us and our technology.
The Na'vi get technology as a freebie - carbon-fiber skeletons and a databus connection to other living things.
Well, sorry, but us humans have to work at that sort of thing.Comic-Book Guy Critiques: You know, for the 'Sky People' we don't seem to know jack-shit about aerial combat.
Apparently, we've forgotten stuff that Eddie Rickenbacker and Manfred von Richtofen figured out a century ago.
Leaving aside that you could just drop stuff on the Na'vi from orbit, why do you come in low and slow so the enemy can jump you from above and behind?
And why do you have helos, mechs, and transports, but no jet fighters?
On a planet with the enemy riding around on pterodactyl-like critters, wouldn't it be nice to have some fast-movers that can fly above them?All that aside, I say see it, and see it in 3D.
Think of it less as a full movie and more as an amusement park ride.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545284</id>
	<title>Re:Why would you want to go with other people?</title>
	<author>mobby\_6kl</author>
	<datestamp>1261679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is though, not everybody has an awesome projection system set up at home. Once you remove 3D and superior picture size and quality from Avatar, the film has nothing left to offer, unfortunately.</p><p>The only thing besides the visuals I heard positive comments on were some action scenes in the third act, but everything else is apparently rather mediocre. It's not even that the plot is simple, I certainly don't expect every movie to be some kind of mindfuck a-la Blade Runner. Something like Crank had a simple and absolutely ridiculous plot, but Avatar's is basically one huge predictable cliche, which also manages to be pretentious as well - it's white corporate imperialist oppressing local noble savages, and the hero decides to defect to the side which of course lives in total harmony (and connection, ugh) with the nature. Fuck.</p><p>The characters are flat and aren't developed too well (look, it's the evil corporate guy! And there's the crazy military general!), while the dialog is often just silly ("We're not in Kansas any more" FFS, James!). Why did they try to hid Sam's Aussie accent, couldn't he just happen to be from Australia, or live there with his father on a military base? Even the soundtrack is rather generic.</p><p>I'm not saying that the movie is terrible, in fact I think that films <i>are</i> a visual media and thus can be enjoyed as such. However I think that it's going to take much more than that to be the best sci-fi movie of the decade/ever, which is what many are claiming this to be. I'll probably go see it in IMAX, at the very least I'll see how the 3D tech works nowadays since I haven't seen a singe 3D movie yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is though , not everybody has an awesome projection system set up at home .
Once you remove 3D and superior picture size and quality from Avatar , the film has nothing left to offer , unfortunately.The only thing besides the visuals I heard positive comments on were some action scenes in the third act , but everything else is apparently rather mediocre .
It 's not even that the plot is simple , I certainly do n't expect every movie to be some kind of mindfuck a-la Blade Runner .
Something like Crank had a simple and absolutely ridiculous plot , but Avatar 's is basically one huge predictable cliche , which also manages to be pretentious as well - it 's white corporate imperialist oppressing local noble savages , and the hero decides to defect to the side which of course lives in total harmony ( and connection , ugh ) with the nature .
Fuck.The characters are flat and are n't developed too well ( look , it 's the evil corporate guy !
And there 's the crazy military general !
) , while the dialog is often just silly ( " We 're not in Kansas any more " FFS , James ! ) .
Why did they try to hid Sam 's Aussie accent , could n't he just happen to be from Australia , or live there with his father on a military base ?
Even the soundtrack is rather generic.I 'm not saying that the movie is terrible , in fact I think that films are a visual media and thus can be enjoyed as such .
However I think that it 's going to take much more than that to be the best sci-fi movie of the decade/ever , which is what many are claiming this to be .
I 'll probably go see it in IMAX , at the very least I 'll see how the 3D tech works nowadays since I have n't seen a singe 3D movie yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is though, not everybody has an awesome projection system set up at home.
Once you remove 3D and superior picture size and quality from Avatar, the film has nothing left to offer, unfortunately.The only thing besides the visuals I heard positive comments on were some action scenes in the third act, but everything else is apparently rather mediocre.
It's not even that the plot is simple, I certainly don't expect every movie to be some kind of mindfuck a-la Blade Runner.
Something like Crank had a simple and absolutely ridiculous plot, but Avatar's is basically one huge predictable cliche, which also manages to be pretentious as well - it's white corporate imperialist oppressing local noble savages, and the hero decides to defect to the side which of course lives in total harmony (and connection, ugh) with the nature.
Fuck.The characters are flat and aren't developed too well (look, it's the evil corporate guy!
And there's the crazy military general!
), while the dialog is often just silly ("We're not in Kansas any more" FFS, James!).
Why did they try to hid Sam's Aussie accent, couldn't he just happen to be from Australia, or live there with his father on a military base?
Even the soundtrack is rather generic.I'm not saying that the movie is terrible, in fact I think that films are a visual media and thus can be enjoyed as such.
However I think that it's going to take much more than that to be the best sci-fi movie of the decade/ever, which is what many are claiming this to be.
I'll probably go see it in IMAX, at the very least I'll see how the 3D tech works nowadays since I haven't seen a singe 3D movie yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544126</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1261671840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fortunately, the movie has far, far more going on than plot and character development. the world of Pandora is a wonderous place, and the movie puts you there. It's truly inventive and interesting, and I can't really say that about many movies these days. It has incredible atmosphere and, yes, even craft. It's an extremely well done movie for what it sets out to do.<br> <br>This is the kind of thing I'd bring my little brother to watch. Hell, I'd say that a more complicated and convoluted plot is the last thing Avatar needed, considering its main objective - a fun piece of entertainment that takes you away from our world and into another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , the movie has far , far more going on than plot and character development .
the world of Pandora is a wonderous place , and the movie puts you there .
It 's truly inventive and interesting , and I ca n't really say that about many movies these days .
It has incredible atmosphere and , yes , even craft .
It 's an extremely well done movie for what it sets out to do .
This is the kind of thing I 'd bring my little brother to watch .
Hell , I 'd say that a more complicated and convoluted plot is the last thing Avatar needed , considering its main objective - a fun piece of entertainment that takes you away from our world and into another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, the movie has far, far more going on than plot and character development.
the world of Pandora is a wonderous place, and the movie puts you there.
It's truly inventive and interesting, and I can't really say that about many movies these days.
It has incredible atmosphere and, yes, even craft.
It's an extremely well done movie for what it sets out to do.
This is the kind of thing I'd bring my little brother to watch.
Hell, I'd say that a more complicated and convoluted plot is the last thing Avatar needed, considering its main objective - a fun piece of entertainment that takes you away from our world and into another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546472</id>
	<title>Re:As I said on the blog...</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1261687860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have no idea what cinemas charge nowadays</p></div><p>Guess you were one of the unfortunate ones, who had to watch the movie in bad 2D cam-rip with russian subs.<br> <br>
To enjoy the movie, you should check the 3D version at the theatres.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea what cinemas charge nowadaysGuess you were one of the unfortunate ones , who had to watch the movie in bad 2D cam-rip with russian subs .
To enjoy the movie , you should check the 3D version at the theatres .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea what cinemas charge nowadaysGuess you were one of the unfortunate ones, who had to watch the movie in bad 2D cam-rip with russian subs.
To enjoy the movie, you should check the 3D version at the theatres.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546104</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1261684740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; Seconded -- it actually almost makes me physically ill to think of the fact that Avatar will probably make close to (if not more than) a billion dollars while thousands of brilliant, thoughtful films wallow in obscurity.
</p><p>
Right.  Consider this, though:  People can demonstrably be drawn to the theater in great numbers to see something revolutionary in special effects.  But how do you do it twice?  There's already talk that Cameron needs to make another film using this technology in order to recoup the non-recurring cost.  If he rehashes another overused script, will people come in sufficient numbers?  They've already seen the pretty lights.  I suspect the next film will need to have more going for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Seconded -- it actually almost makes me physically ill to think of the fact that Avatar will probably make close to ( if not more than ) a billion dollars while thousands of brilliant , thoughtful films wallow in obscurity .
Right. Consider this , though : People can demonstrably be drawn to the theater in great numbers to see something revolutionary in special effects .
But how do you do it twice ?
There 's already talk that Cameron needs to make another film using this technology in order to recoup the non-recurring cost .
If he rehashes another overused script , will people come in sufficient numbers ?
They 've already seen the pretty lights .
I suspect the next film will need to have more going for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; Seconded -- it actually almost makes me physically ill to think of the fact that Avatar will probably make close to (if not more than) a billion dollars while thousands of brilliant, thoughtful films wallow in obscurity.
Right.  Consider this, though:  People can demonstrably be drawn to the theater in great numbers to see something revolutionary in special effects.
But how do you do it twice?
There's already talk that Cameron needs to make another film using this technology in order to recoup the non-recurring cost.
If he rehashes another overused script, will people come in sufficient numbers?
They've already seen the pretty lights.
I suspect the next film will need to have more going for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544300</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>heidaro</author>
	<datestamp>1261673100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are living in post modern times boy. Having an original story in a movie is getting more and more difficult and it is rather about how it is done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are living in post modern times boy .
Having an original story in a movie is getting more and more difficult and it is rather about how it is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are living in post modern times boy.
Having an original story in a movie is getting more and more difficult and it is rather about how it is done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547018</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>krelian</author>
	<datestamp>1261650180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We are no longer a nation that takes pride in greatness</p></div><p>We take pride in disliking everything that is popular, so that we can feel special.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are no longer a nation that takes pride in greatnessWe take pride in disliking everything that is popular , so that we can feel special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are no longer a nation that takes pride in greatnessWe take pride in disliking everything that is popular, so that we can feel special.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547222</id>
	<title>arguments against like evolution fall flat</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1261651980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must say the article's arguments that evolution of creatures that look familiar to us is unlikely falls flat with me. There are numerous instances on Earth where creatures that are not closely related end up with the same adaptations and specializations. An Old World Porcupine and New World Porcupine are barely related (closest common ancestors are without quills) but they look similar and ended up with a very unique adaptation (at least for a mammal).</p><p>see also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent\_evolution" title="wikipedia.org">Covergent Evolution</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must say the article 's arguments that evolution of creatures that look familiar to us is unlikely falls flat with me .
There are numerous instances on Earth where creatures that are not closely related end up with the same adaptations and specializations .
An Old World Porcupine and New World Porcupine are barely related ( closest common ancestors are without quills ) but they look similar and ended up with a very unique adaptation ( at least for a mammal ) .see also : Covergent Evolution [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must say the article's arguments that evolution of creatures that look familiar to us is unlikely falls flat with me.
There are numerous instances on Earth where creatures that are not closely related end up with the same adaptations and specializations.
An Old World Porcupine and New World Porcupine are barely related (closest common ancestors are without quills) but they look similar and ended up with a very unique adaptation (at least for a mammal).see also: Covergent Evolution [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544116</id>
	<title>Weapons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261671840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didnt saw the movie yet, but the weapons i saw in trailer at least didn't impressed me a lot, all what must be advanced just to be there, and one of the fastest evolving technologies in history changed so little? Last week reread Hyperion, and finishing Endymion, and the military advancement pictured there (specially how you fight getting to that point of technology) looks more like the evolution rate that it should have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Didnt saw the movie yet , but the weapons i saw in trailer at least did n't impressed me a lot , all what must be advanced just to be there , and one of the fastest evolving technologies in history changed so little ?
Last week reread Hyperion , and finishing Endymion , and the military advancement pictured there ( specially how you fight getting to that point of technology ) looks more like the evolution rate that it should have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didnt saw the movie yet, but the weapons i saw in trailer at least didn't impressed me a lot, all what must be advanced just to be there, and one of the fastest evolving technologies in history changed so little?
Last week reread Hyperion, and finishing Endymion, and the military advancement pictured there (specially how you fight getting to that point of technology) looks more like the evolution rate that it should have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543960</id>
	<title>Lifeforms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261670700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with his assessment that life has a high probability of being significantly different than on Earth.  Consider how incredibly rare life on other planets is.  It's quite likely that in order to exist at all it would have to be similar to Earth.   In other words, it's so rare that Earth may in fact be close to the only possible solution (given the laws of the universe, its makeup, and life).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with his assessment that life has a high probability of being significantly different than on Earth .
Consider how incredibly rare life on other planets is .
It 's quite likely that in order to exist at all it would have to be similar to Earth .
In other words , it 's so rare that Earth may in fact be close to the only possible solution ( given the laws of the universe , its makeup , and life ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with his assessment that life has a high probability of being significantly different than on Earth.
Consider how incredibly rare life on other planets is.
It's quite likely that in order to exist at all it would have to be similar to Earth.
In other words, it's so rare that Earth may in fact be close to the only possible solution (given the laws of the universe, its makeup, and life).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544346</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261673400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hear me hate on a movie I have not seen and know nothing about!</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p><p>Seriously, I haven't seen it yet and I'm wary of the same things you are. But, I'll hold off my judgment until after seeing it. Judgment = alright, Prejudgment = not alright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear me hate on a movie I have not seen and know nothing about ! There , fixed that for you.Seriously , I have n't seen it yet and I 'm wary of the same things you are .
But , I 'll hold off my judgment until after seeing it .
Judgment = alright , Prejudgment = not alright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear me hate on a movie I have not seen and know nothing about!There, fixed that for you.Seriously, I haven't seen it yet and I'm wary of the same things you are.
But, I'll hold off my judgment until after seeing it.
Judgment = alright, Prejudgment = not alright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545044</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>CxDoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261677720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2012 gains nothing by being seen in cinema. The most shocking thing about it is that they spent over 200 million and the effects are so lame you feel like playing a shitty game. I went to see it for effects only and it is not worth it.</p><p>Torrent it and watch it on your phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2012 gains nothing by being seen in cinema .
The most shocking thing about it is that they spent over 200 million and the effects are so lame you feel like playing a shitty game .
I went to see it for effects only and it is not worth it.Torrent it and watch it on your phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2012 gains nothing by being seen in cinema.
The most shocking thing about it is that they spent over 200 million and the effects are so lame you feel like playing a shitty game.
I went to see it for effects only and it is not worth it.Torrent it and watch it on your phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544682</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>ShatteredArm</author>
	<datestamp>1261675500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1<br> <br>

Ebert may have been right... This movie will transform cinema.  Unfortunately, that will be a transformation from a type of cinema where the art lies in the cinematography, to one where the art achieved through computer animation.  Say goodbye to camera work, scripts, and acting; and welcome our new shiny glittery CGI overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Ebert may have been right... This movie will transform cinema .
Unfortunately , that will be a transformation from a type of cinema where the art lies in the cinematography , to one where the art achieved through computer animation .
Say goodbye to camera work , scripts , and acting ; and welcome our new shiny glittery CGI overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 

Ebert may have been right... This movie will transform cinema.
Unfortunately, that will be a transformation from a type of cinema where the art lies in the cinematography, to one where the art achieved through computer animation.
Say goodbye to camera work, scripts, and acting; and welcome our new shiny glittery CGI overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544018</id>
	<title>Professor of astrophysics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261671180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>written by a professor of astrophysics who has worked on searching for planets and SETI.</p></div><p>Thought I recognized the name - <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30374" title="theonion.com">wasn't he part of this team</a> [theonion.com]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>written by a professor of astrophysics who has worked on searching for planets and SETI.Thought I recognized the name - was n't he part of this team [ theonion.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>written by a professor of astrophysics who has worked on searching for planets and SETI.Thought I recognized the name - wasn't he part of this team [theonion.com]?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544786</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1261676100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's any consolation, Shakespeare's plays were considered trashy pulp theater at the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's any consolation , Shakespeare 's plays were considered trashy pulp theater at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's any consolation, Shakespeare's plays were considered trashy pulp theater at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544926</id>
	<title>Re:Weapons</title>
	<author>rochrist</author>
	<datestamp>1261676940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is english your second language? Just wondering...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is english your second language ?
Just wondering.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is english your second language?
Just wondering...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547022</id>
	<title>Re:Floating Mountains explained</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261650180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, what that movie needed were a couple of good lectures and some slides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , what that movie needed were a couple of good lectures and some slides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, what that movie needed were a couple of good lectures and some slides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546050</id>
	<title>Re:You're definitely not the only one.</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1261684260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
But but but... the special effects were really cool!  Don't you want to see the pretty lights??  No?  Ok then, turn in your geek card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But but but... the special effects were really cool !
Do n't you want to see the pretty lights ? ?
No ? Ok then , turn in your geek card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
But but but... the special effects were really cool!
Don't you want to see the pretty lights??
No?  Ok then, turn in your geek card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547982</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is full of flaws itself</title>
	<author>955301</author>
	<datestamp>1261658640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd add one more point regarding the "noble savage" excuse the technology gap keeps landing on.</p><p>The Na'vi *can't* be more technologically advanced. Since the planet is almost completely alive and the Na'vi plugged into it, they can't put a shovel into the ground without killing something dear to them. For them to make an advancement at the detriment of something living, it would have to be worth it to them. Eating to survive is worth it, so they have thanksgiving at every kill, but kill nonetheless.</p><p>The one exception I could think of would be digging unobtanium off the side of one of the floating mountains to create some sort of flying vehicle. But they already have flying vehicles that perform their own maintenance! And the superconductor hovering would only work in highly magnetic regions.</p><p>So I'd argue they are technologically advanced. They have a standing army, worldwide network, flying vehicles. Their technology - carbon fiber skeletons &amp; fibre optic adapters come naturally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd add one more point regarding the " noble savage " excuse the technology gap keeps landing on.The Na'vi * ca n't * be more technologically advanced .
Since the planet is almost completely alive and the Na'vi plugged into it , they ca n't put a shovel into the ground without killing something dear to them .
For them to make an advancement at the detriment of something living , it would have to be worth it to them .
Eating to survive is worth it , so they have thanksgiving at every kill , but kill nonetheless.The one exception I could think of would be digging unobtanium off the side of one of the floating mountains to create some sort of flying vehicle .
But they already have flying vehicles that perform their own maintenance !
And the superconductor hovering would only work in highly magnetic regions.So I 'd argue they are technologically advanced .
They have a standing army , worldwide network , flying vehicles .
Their technology - carbon fiber skeletons &amp; fibre optic adapters come naturally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd add one more point regarding the "noble savage" excuse the technology gap keeps landing on.The Na'vi *can't* be more technologically advanced.
Since the planet is almost completely alive and the Na'vi plugged into it, they can't put a shovel into the ground without killing something dear to them.
For them to make an advancement at the detriment of something living, it would have to be worth it to them.
Eating to survive is worth it, so they have thanksgiving at every kill, but kill nonetheless.The one exception I could think of would be digging unobtanium off the side of one of the floating mountains to create some sort of flying vehicle.
But they already have flying vehicles that perform their own maintenance!
And the superconductor hovering would only work in highly magnetic regions.So I'd argue they are technologically advanced.
They have a standing army, worldwide network, flying vehicles.
Their technology - carbon fiber skeletons &amp; fibre optic adapters come naturally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544206</id>
	<title>Just say "No" to Furries</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1261672440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My God man, it's got Furries, stay away.  Stay far away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My God man , it 's got Furries , stay away .
Stay far away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My God man, it's got Furries, stay away.
Stay far away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30556314</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>CarlosM7</author>
	<datestamp>1261848000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want to see it that bad, go by yourself. Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people, screaming babies, filthy floors, cramped seats, blocked views, terrible traffic, and insufficient parking. Yeah, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.</p></div><p>Here in Puerto Rico I paid $3.75 (matinee) the second day of release, the theather was almost empty with plenty of parking (it's in a shopping center), and nice and clean. Nowhere near the experience you describe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to see it that bad , go by yourself .
Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people , screaming babies , filthy floors , cramped seats , blocked views , terrible traffic , and insufficient parking .
Yeah , nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.Here in Puerto Rico I paid $ 3.75 ( matinee ) the second day of release , the theather was almost empty with plenty of parking ( it 's in a shopping center ) , and nice and clean .
Nowhere near the experience you describe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to see it that bad, go by yourself.
Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people, screaming babies, filthy floors, cramped seats, blocked views, terrible traffic, and insufficient parking.
Yeah, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.Here in Puerto Rico I paid $3.75 (matinee) the second day of release, the theather was almost empty with plenty of parking (it's in a shopping center), and nice and clean.
Nowhere near the experience you describe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543992</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261670940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A movie that is purely plot and not so much visuals don't suffer a lot watching it in low quality, but one where visuals are one of the critical pieces? Even 2012 (ok, the 1st hour) deserved to be seen in a theater.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A movie that is purely plot and not so much visuals do n't suffer a lot watching it in low quality , but one where visuals are one of the critical pieces ?
Even 2012 ( ok , the 1st hour ) deserved to be seen in a theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A movie that is purely plot and not so much visuals don't suffer a lot watching it in low quality, but one where visuals are one of the critical pieces?
Even 2012 (ok, the 1st hour) deserved to be seen in a theater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544556</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>colmore</author>
	<datestamp>1261674840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, you're not missing much.  It's Fern Gully with $300 Million special effects.  Titanic was a better movie, and I didn't really like Titanic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , you 're not missing much .
It 's Fern Gully with $ 300 Million special effects .
Titanic was a better movie , and I did n't really like Titanic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, you're not missing much.
It's Fern Gully with $300 Million special effects.
Titanic was a better movie, and I didn't really like Titanic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544250</id>
	<title>Fools, you don't pay to see technology previews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261672740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously most of the Slash crew are not actually in tech, 'cause we know that it's the other way around: the vendor bribes you to waste your time at his technology preview.  This is some gross perversion of The Way Things Work, at least for the minority here who actually work in tech, as opposed to those who push the buttons on registers and miscount our change.</p><p>Okay, seriously?  Movies more than live down to Sturgeon's Revelation, IMO, and this is just one of the easier ways that happens.  Part of the blame is an audience that will, by and large, happily accept this sort of crud (oooh, shiny...), suggesting that the moviegoing public is yet another example of that 90\%.</p><p>But hey, if you enjoy fancy CGIs papering over a story that's recycled from other, more ambitious works, and floating islands that ripoff\\\\\\ do homage to Roger Dean's thirty-year old vision... you must be typical Slashdotties.  Merry Commercialism Day!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously most of the Slash crew are not actually in tech , 'cause we know that it 's the other way around : the vendor bribes you to waste your time at his technology preview .
This is some gross perversion of The Way Things Work , at least for the minority here who actually work in tech , as opposed to those who push the buttons on registers and miscount our change.Okay , seriously ?
Movies more than live down to Sturgeon 's Revelation , IMO , and this is just one of the easier ways that happens .
Part of the blame is an audience that will , by and large , happily accept this sort of crud ( oooh , shiny... ) , suggesting that the moviegoing public is yet another example of that 90 \ % .But hey , if you enjoy fancy CGIs papering over a story that 's recycled from other , more ambitious works , and floating islands that ripoff \ \ \ \ \ \ do homage to Roger Dean 's thirty-year old vision... you must be typical Slashdotties .
Merry Commercialism Day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously most of the Slash crew are not actually in tech, 'cause we know that it's the other way around: the vendor bribes you to waste your time at his technology preview.
This is some gross perversion of The Way Things Work, at least for the minority here who actually work in tech, as opposed to those who push the buttons on registers and miscount our change.Okay, seriously?
Movies more than live down to Sturgeon's Revelation, IMO, and this is just one of the easier ways that happens.
Part of the blame is an audience that will, by and large, happily accept this sort of crud (oooh, shiny...), suggesting that the moviegoing public is yet another example of that 90\%.But hey, if you enjoy fancy CGIs papering over a story that's recycled from other, more ambitious works, and floating islands that ripoff\\\\\\ do homage to Roger Dean's thirty-year old vision... you must be typical Slashdotties.
Merry Commercialism Day!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486</id>
	<title>As I said on the blog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261680660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have just had the misfortune / bad judgement to try to sit through Avatar.</p><p>By 40 minutes in I could stand it no more, and starting flicking forwards, within another 10 minutes I'd skipped to the end.</p><p>Spoilers?</p><p>Nope, you can't give spoilers on something that has a plot thinner than Debbie Does Duluth, there is no story there, period, what there is is CGI.</p><p>If you are of an age to remember Roger Dean (Yes album covers amongst other things) then you have basically seen the stuff that the CGI was clearly designed upon, laws of gravity do not apply, laws of physics do not apply, laws of biology and locomotion do not apply.</p><p>I'm not talking fanciful creatures and landscapes, I'm talking totally impossible, acid trip inspired creatures and landscapes.</p><p>The only spoiler I can think of is, and I kid you not, the basic plot-line centres around a mining operation on an alien planet, mining an ore called "unobtanium"... yeah... the only thing rarer than unobtanium is a decent script.</p><p>One might think that multimillion dollar budgets + CGI + Roger Dean would create something of great aesthetic beauty at least, even if it were great beauty utterly devoid of a plot, but sadly, that isn't the case.</p><p>If they had rendered still scenes, yes, you'd have some great poster art or album covers, but the instant they went for motion it just ruined the whole thing, Roger Dean was never meant to be in motion.</p><p>Frankly the whole film smacks of a bunch of CGI geeks being given an unlimited budget and no rules, the desktop publishing equivalent of producing a parish magazine that uses 11,000 different fonts and every single piece of clip art on disk.</p><p>The semi-cameo role of Sig Weaver and the whole space mining theme (all of which is revealed in the first 10 minutes) means that you simply can't watch Avatar and not be strongly reminded of Alien (1) and this is yet another fatal wound for what is an already dead and decomposing corpse of a movie.</p><p>Alien had real (huge) sets, and the visual effect was stunning, not just because of Giger, but because of depth of focus, Avatar was done with green background and motion cap in someone's garden shed, plus a moonshot's worth of computers running CGI, and it looks utterly fake and feeble.</p><p>I have no idea what cinemas charge nowadays, it is irrelevant when films are as truly, horrendously awful, and this film was. It did not cost me a penny, and of course no popcorn, travelling time, shitty adverts or previews, and I managed to skip through the whole thing in 50 minutes, and I want those 50 minutes of my life back.</p><p>The new (a couple of years old at least) series of Captain Scarlet (also done in CGI) is quite honestly nothing less than three or four orders of magnitude better than Avatar on every single level imaginable.</p><p>As for the Avatar lead species, the hominids themselves, think the illegitimate love child of Jar Jar Binks and Pikachu, yes, really, that implausible, ridiculous, and vile. Kill it, kill it now, with (digital) fire.</p><p>I have a revelation for you.</p><p>Hollywood is dead.</p><p>Really, for less money than it would cost to take two kids to see this steaming pile of crap, you could go out and buy Crysis, which will provide about 40 hours of gameplay (sans god mode), a far better plot, a far more immersive and entertaining experience, and better and more realistic physics.</p><p>Seriously, whatever you do this Christmas, do not get talked into sitting through Avatar, do not get talked into paying for anyone else (kids) to see it, and, if you value your kids minds more than marshmallow, do not let your kids anywhere near it.</p><p>I am NOT joking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have just had the misfortune / bad judgement to try to sit through Avatar.By 40 minutes in I could stand it no more , and starting flicking forwards , within another 10 minutes I 'd skipped to the end.Spoilers ? Nope , you ca n't give spoilers on something that has a plot thinner than Debbie Does Duluth , there is no story there , period , what there is is CGI.If you are of an age to remember Roger Dean ( Yes album covers amongst other things ) then you have basically seen the stuff that the CGI was clearly designed upon , laws of gravity do not apply , laws of physics do not apply , laws of biology and locomotion do not apply.I 'm not talking fanciful creatures and landscapes , I 'm talking totally impossible , acid trip inspired creatures and landscapes.The only spoiler I can think of is , and I kid you not , the basic plot-line centres around a mining operation on an alien planet , mining an ore called " unobtanium " ... yeah... the only thing rarer than unobtanium is a decent script.One might think that multimillion dollar budgets + CGI + Roger Dean would create something of great aesthetic beauty at least , even if it were great beauty utterly devoid of a plot , but sadly , that is n't the case.If they had rendered still scenes , yes , you 'd have some great poster art or album covers , but the instant they went for motion it just ruined the whole thing , Roger Dean was never meant to be in motion.Frankly the whole film smacks of a bunch of CGI geeks being given an unlimited budget and no rules , the desktop publishing equivalent of producing a parish magazine that uses 11,000 different fonts and every single piece of clip art on disk.The semi-cameo role of Sig Weaver and the whole space mining theme ( all of which is revealed in the first 10 minutes ) means that you simply ca n't watch Avatar and not be strongly reminded of Alien ( 1 ) and this is yet another fatal wound for what is an already dead and decomposing corpse of a movie.Alien had real ( huge ) sets , and the visual effect was stunning , not just because of Giger , but because of depth of focus , Avatar was done with green background and motion cap in someone 's garden shed , plus a moonshot 's worth of computers running CGI , and it looks utterly fake and feeble.I have no idea what cinemas charge nowadays , it is irrelevant when films are as truly , horrendously awful , and this film was .
It did not cost me a penny , and of course no popcorn , travelling time , shitty adverts or previews , and I managed to skip through the whole thing in 50 minutes , and I want those 50 minutes of my life back.The new ( a couple of years old at least ) series of Captain Scarlet ( also done in CGI ) is quite honestly nothing less than three or four orders of magnitude better than Avatar on every single level imaginable.As for the Avatar lead species , the hominids themselves , think the illegitimate love child of Jar Jar Binks and Pikachu , yes , really , that implausible , ridiculous , and vile .
Kill it , kill it now , with ( digital ) fire.I have a revelation for you.Hollywood is dead.Really , for less money than it would cost to take two kids to see this steaming pile of crap , you could go out and buy Crysis , which will provide about 40 hours of gameplay ( sans god mode ) , a far better plot , a far more immersive and entertaining experience , and better and more realistic physics.Seriously , whatever you do this Christmas , do not get talked into sitting through Avatar , do not get talked into paying for anyone else ( kids ) to see it , and , if you value your kids minds more than marshmallow , do not let your kids anywhere near it.I am NOT joking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have just had the misfortune / bad judgement to try to sit through Avatar.By 40 minutes in I could stand it no more, and starting flicking forwards, within another 10 minutes I'd skipped to the end.Spoilers?Nope, you can't give spoilers on something that has a plot thinner than Debbie Does Duluth, there is no story there, period, what there is is CGI.If you are of an age to remember Roger Dean (Yes album covers amongst other things) then you have basically seen the stuff that the CGI was clearly designed upon, laws of gravity do not apply, laws of physics do not apply, laws of biology and locomotion do not apply.I'm not talking fanciful creatures and landscapes, I'm talking totally impossible, acid trip inspired creatures and landscapes.The only spoiler I can think of is, and I kid you not, the basic plot-line centres around a mining operation on an alien planet, mining an ore called "unobtanium"... yeah... the only thing rarer than unobtanium is a decent script.One might think that multimillion dollar budgets + CGI + Roger Dean would create something of great aesthetic beauty at least, even if it were great beauty utterly devoid of a plot, but sadly, that isn't the case.If they had rendered still scenes, yes, you'd have some great poster art or album covers, but the instant they went for motion it just ruined the whole thing, Roger Dean was never meant to be in motion.Frankly the whole film smacks of a bunch of CGI geeks being given an unlimited budget and no rules, the desktop publishing equivalent of producing a parish magazine that uses 11,000 different fonts and every single piece of clip art on disk.The semi-cameo role of Sig Weaver and the whole space mining theme (all of which is revealed in the first 10 minutes) means that you simply can't watch Avatar and not be strongly reminded of Alien (1) and this is yet another fatal wound for what is an already dead and decomposing corpse of a movie.Alien had real (huge) sets, and the visual effect was stunning, not just because of Giger, but because of depth of focus, Avatar was done with green background and motion cap in someone's garden shed, plus a moonshot's worth of computers running CGI, and it looks utterly fake and feeble.I have no idea what cinemas charge nowadays, it is irrelevant when films are as truly, horrendously awful, and this film was.
It did not cost me a penny, and of course no popcorn, travelling time, shitty adverts or previews, and I managed to skip through the whole thing in 50 minutes, and I want those 50 minutes of my life back.The new (a couple of years old at least) series of Captain Scarlet (also done in CGI) is quite honestly nothing less than three or four orders of magnitude better than Avatar on every single level imaginable.As for the Avatar lead species, the hominids themselves, think the illegitimate love child of Jar Jar Binks and Pikachu, yes, really, that implausible, ridiculous, and vile.
Kill it, kill it now, with (digital) fire.I have a revelation for you.Hollywood is dead.Really, for less money than it would cost to take two kids to see this steaming pile of crap, you could go out and buy Crysis, which will provide about 40 hours of gameplay (sans god mode), a far better plot, a far more immersive and entertaining experience, and better and more realistic physics.Seriously, whatever you do this Christmas, do not get talked into sitting through Avatar, do not get talked into paying for anyone else (kids) to see it, and, if you value your kids minds more than marshmallow, do not let your kids anywhere near it.I am NOT joking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546194</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>rnelsonee</author>
	<datestamp>1261685520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Avatar <i>is</i> great. How many people can make a film with such good effects? And on a budget? The world was immersive, the cinematography was brilliant (which used a never-before-used technique that Cameron pioneered) and the director utilized new 3D cameras that no one else has ever used in a studio movie. Sure the plot is thin, but on a technical level, I don't think this movie has any competition.</p><p>You want a movie about a dysfunctional family shot with a steadycam? Maybe have Parker Posey or Michael Cera in it? Yeah, those don't make a billion dollars because they're not different. Some indie films are still great, but there are movies with good plots, and movies with great cinematography. There's room for both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Avatar is great .
How many people can make a film with such good effects ?
And on a budget ?
The world was immersive , the cinematography was brilliant ( which used a never-before-used technique that Cameron pioneered ) and the director utilized new 3D cameras that no one else has ever used in a studio movie .
Sure the plot is thin , but on a technical level , I do n't think this movie has any competition.You want a movie about a dysfunctional family shot with a steadycam ?
Maybe have Parker Posey or Michael Cera in it ?
Yeah , those do n't make a billion dollars because they 're not different .
Some indie films are still great , but there are movies with good plots , and movies with great cinematography .
There 's room for both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Avatar is great.
How many people can make a film with such good effects?
And on a budget?
The world was immersive, the cinematography was brilliant (which used a never-before-used technique that Cameron pioneered) and the director utilized new 3D cameras that no one else has ever used in a studio movie.
Sure the plot is thin, but on a technical level, I don't think this movie has any competition.You want a movie about a dysfunctional family shot with a steadycam?
Maybe have Parker Posey or Michael Cera in it?
Yeah, those don't make a billion dollars because they're not different.
Some indie films are still great, but there are movies with good plots, and movies with great cinematography.
There's room for both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543832</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261669860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Taco, this isn't your journal.  Nobody cares if you've seen the movie.
<br> <br>
And, no, you're not the last person on earth who hasn't seen it.  Some people don't give a shit about sci-fi films.
<br> <br>
Merry Christmas!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taco , this is n't your journal .
Nobody cares if you 've seen the movie .
And , no , you 're not the last person on earth who has n't seen it .
Some people do n't give a shit about sci-fi films .
Merry Christmas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taco, this isn't your journal.
Nobody cares if you've seen the movie.
And, no, you're not the last person on earth who hasn't seen it.
Some people don't give a shit about sci-fi films.
Merry Christmas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30621104</id>
	<title>The 'starship' - more good science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230897180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another science plus for me was seeing Polyphemus and Pandora reflected in the rear-facing side of the 'shield' at the front of the starship. When you're braking into orbit, your propulsion system needs to face the direction of travel more or less...which is exactly what the ship's orientation was. I did not like Mission to Mars for a lot of reasons, one of them was the fact that the ship was pointed at Mars when they were about to perform orbit insertion. That's a brilliant idea if you want to crash, not a good idea if you want to achieve orbit.</p><p>The spinning artificial gravity modules of the habitat section were also a nice touch, placed at the far forward end of the starship just behind the shield....a good place to put them if you have a bunch of nuclear reactors at the aft end powering your propulsion system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another science plus for me was seeing Polyphemus and Pandora reflected in the rear-facing side of the 'shield ' at the front of the starship .
When you 're braking into orbit , your propulsion system needs to face the direction of travel more or less...which is exactly what the ship 's orientation was .
I did not like Mission to Mars for a lot of reasons , one of them was the fact that the ship was pointed at Mars when they were about to perform orbit insertion .
That 's a brilliant idea if you want to crash , not a good idea if you want to achieve orbit.The spinning artificial gravity modules of the habitat section were also a nice touch , placed at the far forward end of the starship just behind the shield....a good place to put them if you have a bunch of nuclear reactors at the aft end powering your propulsion system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another science plus for me was seeing Polyphemus and Pandora reflected in the rear-facing side of the 'shield' at the front of the starship.
When you're braking into orbit, your propulsion system needs to face the direction of travel more or less...which is exactly what the ship's orientation was.
I did not like Mission to Mars for a lot of reasons, one of them was the fact that the ship was pointed at Mars when they were about to perform orbit insertion.
That's a brilliant idea if you want to crash, not a good idea if you want to achieve orbit.The spinning artificial gravity modules of the habitat section were also a nice touch, placed at the far forward end of the starship just behind the shield....a good place to put them if you have a bunch of nuclear reactors at the aft end powering your propulsion system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544138</id>
	<title>Re:You aren't missing anything</title>
	<author>TiberiusMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261672020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>er...  Unobtanium is a word that's been used for sometime now, like before I was born.  Knowing the word already and then hearing it in the film I felt that either the character was making fun of how amazing this metal was, or that James Cameron was poking fun of the "made up material/substance" we so often see in sci-fi to explain things.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>er... Unobtanium is a word that 's been used for sometime now , like before I was born .
Knowing the word already and then hearing it in the film I felt that either the character was making fun of how amazing this metal was , or that James Cameron was poking fun of the " made up material/substance " we so often see in sci-fi to explain things .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>er...  Unobtanium is a word that's been used for sometime now, like before I was born.
Knowing the word already and then hearing it in the film I felt that either the character was making fun of how amazing this metal was, or that James Cameron was poking fun of the "made up material/substance" we so often see in sci-fi to explain things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543982</id>
	<title>The biotechnology is at least quite believable</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1261670880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if their neural interfaces are a bit out there. We've been growing <a href="http://www.bio.pku.edu.cn/Exchange/inter-school/download/Humanizedmice.pdf" title="pku.edu.cn">humanized mice</a> [pku.edu.cn] for years. I wonder if all they really needed to do, however, was to generate a chimera by seeding an embryo with a human nervous system before the immune system starts to develop. We've learned <a href="http://www.biolreprod.org/content/68/5/1657.full.pdf+html" title="biolreprod.org">quite</a> [biolreprod.org] <a href="http://www.cdb.riken.go.jp/emo/pub/pdf/Nagashima\_0501.pdf" title="riken.go.jp">a</a> [riken.go.jp] <a href="http://poultsci.highwire.org/cgi/reprint/81/9/1360" title="highwire.org">bit</a> [highwire.org] about developmental biology from avian chimeras, mammalian chimeras are a bit more challenging but can be achieved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if their neural interfaces are a bit out there .
We 've been growing humanized mice [ pku.edu.cn ] for years .
I wonder if all they really needed to do , however , was to generate a chimera by seeding an embryo with a human nervous system before the immune system starts to develop .
We 've learned quite [ biolreprod.org ] a [ riken.go.jp ] bit [ highwire.org ] about developmental biology from avian chimeras , mammalian chimeras are a bit more challenging but can be achieved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if their neural interfaces are a bit out there.
We've been growing humanized mice [pku.edu.cn] for years.
I wonder if all they really needed to do, however, was to generate a chimera by seeding an embryo with a human nervous system before the immune system starts to develop.
We've learned quite [biolreprod.org] a [riken.go.jp] bit [highwire.org] about developmental biology from avian chimeras, mammalian chimeras are a bit more challenging but can be achieved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544714</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Stupid McStupidson</author>
	<datestamp>1261675680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> I would be upset at the bandwidth burned in the torrent for shitty cam rips. It's a horrible movie, and thanks to technology (and an extra fee for it on top of the admission) it sucks in 3 dimensions. He should have cut one of the gratuitous action and visual scenes that are so frequent they lose all their effect of awe, and hired a couple writers to write at least a mediocre story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be upset at the bandwidth burned in the torrent for shitty cam rips .
It 's a horrible movie , and thanks to technology ( and an extra fee for it on top of the admission ) it sucks in 3 dimensions .
He should have cut one of the gratuitous action and visual scenes that are so frequent they lose all their effect of awe , and hired a couple writers to write at least a mediocre story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I would be upset at the bandwidth burned in the torrent for shitty cam rips.
It's a horrible movie, and thanks to technology (and an extra fee for it on top of the admission) it sucks in 3 dimensions.
He should have cut one of the gratuitous action and visual scenes that are so frequent they lose all their effect of awe, and hired a couple writers to write at least a mediocre story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546098</id>
	<title>Day / Night cycle never addressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261684680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't see any mention in this article of the unusual cycle this planet would have if it were orbiting a much larger gas giant.  Assuming the planet had its own axis of rotation like Earth, and that its revolution around a gas giant had a period of a few days, wouldn't there be an unusual cycle of day/night with a prolonged period of night when the gas giant was between it and Alpha Centauri?  There would be a phase of night that was somewhat dark, as the moon received only reflected light from the gas giant, and then there would be much darker night phases when it was on the other side.</p><p>Perhaps this was how more intricate bioluminescent life forms evolved on that world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see any mention in this article of the unusual cycle this planet would have if it were orbiting a much larger gas giant .
Assuming the planet had its own axis of rotation like Earth , and that its revolution around a gas giant had a period of a few days , would n't there be an unusual cycle of day/night with a prolonged period of night when the gas giant was between it and Alpha Centauri ?
There would be a phase of night that was somewhat dark , as the moon received only reflected light from the gas giant , and then there would be much darker night phases when it was on the other side.Perhaps this was how more intricate bioluminescent life forms evolved on that world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see any mention in this article of the unusual cycle this planet would have if it were orbiting a much larger gas giant.
Assuming the planet had its own axis of rotation like Earth, and that its revolution around a gas giant had a period of a few days, wouldn't there be an unusual cycle of day/night with a prolonged period of night when the gas giant was between it and Alpha Centauri?
There would be a phase of night that was somewhat dark, as the moon received only reflected light from the gas giant, and then there would be much darker night phases when it was on the other side.Perhaps this was how more intricate bioluminescent life forms evolved on that world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544312</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1261673160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's their loss, Avatar is probably the last movie you could enjoy in cam-o-vision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's their loss , Avatar is probably the last movie you could enjoy in cam-o-vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's their loss, Avatar is probably the last movie you could enjoy in cam-o-vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546788</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1261647720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>thousands of brilliant, thoughtful films wallow in obscurity</p></div><p>
Why should I pay attention to some shlub of a movie if they haven't put the effort in to at least do a McDonald's Happy Meal tie-in?  I mean, come on, show me you believe in the movie before you ask me to see it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>thousands of brilliant , thoughtful films wallow in obscurity Why should I pay attention to some shlub of a movie if they have n't put the effort in to at least do a McDonald 's Happy Meal tie-in ?
I mean , come on , show me you believe in the movie before you ask me to see it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thousands of brilliant, thoughtful films wallow in obscurity
Why should I pay attention to some shlub of a movie if they haven't put the effort in to at least do a McDonald's Happy Meal tie-in?
I mean, come on, show me you believe in the movie before you ask me to see it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30564192</id>
	<title>That doesn't mean oxygen necessarily</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261940340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It merely shows a reaction which gives off energy.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical\_types\_of\_biochemistry#Nitrogen\_and\_phosphorus\_biochemistry" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical\_types\_of\_biochemistry#Nitrogen\_and\_phosphorus\_biochemistry</a> [wikipedia.org] from <i>"In an ammonia atmosphere"</i><br>Or <i>"Chlorine is sometimes proposed as a biological alternative to oxygen, either in carbon-based biologies or hypothetical non-carbon-based ones"</i> further down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It merely shows a reaction which gives off energy.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical \ _types \ _of \ _biochemistry # Nitrogen \ _and \ _phosphorus \ _biochemistry [ wikipedia.org ] from " In an ammonia atmosphere " Or " Chlorine is sometimes proposed as a biological alternative to oxygen , either in carbon-based biologies or hypothetical non-carbon-based ones " further down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It merely shows a reaction which gives off energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical\_types\_of\_biochemistry#Nitrogen\_and\_phosphorus\_biochemistry [wikipedia.org] from "In an ammonia atmosphere"Or "Chlorine is sometimes proposed as a biological alternative to oxygen, either in carbon-based biologies or hypothetical non-carbon-based ones" further down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543860</id>
	<title>Re:Haven't seen it? Who cares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261670040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>anyone who is excited for this movie is an idiot.</p></div><p>Translation:  I'm poor and lonely and will be sitting by myself on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. all Christmas, so I'm going to make overly-generalized statements regarding the intelligence of anyone happier than me!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone who is excited for this movie is an idiot.Translation : I 'm poor and lonely and will be sitting by myself on / .
all Christmas , so I 'm going to make overly-generalized statements regarding the intelligence of anyone happier than me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone who is excited for this movie is an idiot.Translation:  I'm poor and lonely and will be sitting by myself on /.
all Christmas, so I'm going to make overly-generalized statements regarding the intelligence of anyone happier than me!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544016</id>
	<title>You're definitely not the only one.</title>
	<author>Wint3rhart</author>
	<datestamp>1261671180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't seen it, either... the previews made it look like someone took the plots of Fern Gully and Dances with Wolves, mixed them together, added some blue paint and ~space travel~ and dumped it out on a movie screen.


If I want a story about space travel and learning not to belittle other cultures, Piers Anthony wrote the Cluster series thirty years ago.  It's about due for a re-read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen it , either... the previews made it look like someone took the plots of Fern Gully and Dances with Wolves , mixed them together , added some blue paint and ~ space travel ~ and dumped it out on a movie screen .
If I want a story about space travel and learning not to belittle other cultures , Piers Anthony wrote the Cluster series thirty years ago .
It 's about due for a re-read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen it, either... the previews made it look like someone took the plots of Fern Gully and Dances with Wolves, mixed them together, added some blue paint and ~space travel~ and dumped it out on a movie screen.
If I want a story about space travel and learning not to belittle other cultures, Piers Anthony wrote the Cluster series thirty years ago.
It's about due for a re-read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30561392</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is full of flaws itself</title>
	<author>goldilocksmission</author>
	<datestamp>1261946400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do agree with Mr. Copernicus when he mentioned that <a href="http://www.goldilocksmission.com/blog/2009/12/13/5-alpha-centauri-binary-possibilities.html" title="goldilocksmission.com" rel="nofollow">stable planets can form in binary star systems such as Alpha Centauri</a> [goldilocksmission.com] . And not just stable but perhaps even habitable in human terms. The movie is good science fiction but has good science as well (better than most) just like Copernicus said. That being said, Pandora may have a significant amount of oxygen to cause combustion but not enough atmospheric pressure to help the humans breath (might explain why the Na'vi are taller and why the setting is a perhaps a low grav exo-moon, but not entirely sure on that one). About the floating mountains, you did see that the flora kept them from hovering away right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do agree with Mr. Copernicus when he mentioned that stable planets can form in binary star systems such as Alpha Centauri [ goldilocksmission.com ] .
And not just stable but perhaps even habitable in human terms .
The movie is good science fiction but has good science as well ( better than most ) just like Copernicus said .
That being said , Pandora may have a significant amount of oxygen to cause combustion but not enough atmospheric pressure to help the humans breath ( might explain why the Na'vi are taller and why the setting is a perhaps a low grav exo-moon , but not entirely sure on that one ) .
About the floating mountains , you did see that the flora kept them from hovering away right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do agree with Mr. Copernicus when he mentioned that stable planets can form in binary star systems such as Alpha Centauri [goldilocksmission.com] .
And not just stable but perhaps even habitable in human terms.
The movie is good science fiction but has good science as well (better than most) just like Copernicus said.
That being said, Pandora may have a significant amount of oxygen to cause combustion but not enough atmospheric pressure to help the humans breath (might explain why the Na'vi are taller and why the setting is a perhaps a low grav exo-moon, but not entirely sure on that one).
About the floating mountains, you did see that the flora kept them from hovering away right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</id>
	<title>Ava-who?</title>
	<author>stokessd</author>
	<datestamp>1261670100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I refuse to watch it.  I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot, craft, and character development don't matter, and that all that matters is effects.  This sort of thought has made the bulk of Hollywood movies complete crap.  I'm lucky if there is one or two movies a year that aren't nauseatingly bad.</p><p>Now get off my lawn.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to watch it .
I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot , craft , and character development do n't matter , and that all that matters is effects .
This sort of thought has made the bulk of Hollywood movies complete crap .
I 'm lucky if there is one or two movies a year that are n't nauseatingly bad.Now get off my lawn.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to watch it.
I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot, craft, and character development don't matter, and that all that matters is effects.
This sort of thought has made the bulk of Hollywood movies complete crap.
I'm lucky if there is one or two movies a year that aren't nauseatingly bad.Now get off my lawn.Sheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545546</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261681020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want to see it that bad, go by yourself. Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people, screaming babies, filthy floors, cramped seats, blocked views, terrible traffic, and insufficient parking. Yeah, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.</p></div><p>Can we get a non-hermit opinion?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to see it that bad , go by yourself .
Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people , screaming babies , filthy floors , cramped seats , blocked views , terrible traffic , and insufficient parking .
Yeah , nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.Can we get a non-hermit opinion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to see it that bad, go by yourself.
Enjoy the crowds of obnoxious people, screaming babies, filthy floors, cramped seats, blocked views, terrible traffic, and insufficient parking.
Yeah, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because of crappy cam torrents.Can we get a non-hermit opinion?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543896</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is full of flaws itself</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1261670220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read further down the article.  He acknowledges that people have already corrected him on these points, leaving him further impressed with the movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read further down the article .
He acknowledges that people have already corrected him on these points , leaving him further impressed with the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read further down the article.
He acknowledges that people have already corrected him on these points, leaving him further impressed with the movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544746</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261675800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Link to torrent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Link to torrent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link to torrent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545280</id>
	<title>Don't feel bad, Commander...</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1261679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't bothered to see it, in as much as I've already seen Dances with Wolves, and have never been a one to go "oh golly gosh, wooja lookit that!" at special effects.  I miss the days when movies had to have a decent plot, acting, etc., and couldn't simply borrow an already done story, jazz it up with nifty COMPUTER GENERATED graphics, and rake in more money than I could even imagine in a lifetime, let alone see in person.
<p>
Yawn.  That's right, I typed it, "Yawn."
</p><p>
~Hal
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>... Also, I can kill you with my brain. </i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't bothered to see it , in as much as I 've already seen Dances with Wolves , and have never been a one to go " oh golly gosh , wooja lookit that !
" at special effects .
I miss the days when movies had to have a decent plot , acting , etc. , and could n't simply borrow an already done story , jazz it up with nifty COMPUTER GENERATED graphics , and rake in more money than I could even imagine in a lifetime , let alone see in person .
Yawn. That 's right , I typed it , " Yawn .
" ~ Hal ... Also , I can kill you with my brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't bothered to see it, in as much as I've already seen Dances with Wolves, and have never been a one to go "oh golly gosh, wooja lookit that!
" at special effects.
I miss the days when movies had to have a decent plot, acting, etc., and couldn't simply borrow an already done story, jazz it up with nifty COMPUTER GENERATED graphics, and rake in more money than I could even imagine in a lifetime, let alone see in person.
Yawn.  That's right, I typed it, "Yawn.
"

~Hal
 ... Also, I can kill you with my brain. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548460</id>
	<title>Re:As I said on the blog...</title>
	<author>Alpha830RulZ</author>
	<datestamp>1261665120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm talking totally impossible, acid trip inspired creatures and landscapes.</i></p><p>You're saying this like it's a bad thing.</p><p>Me, I'm looking forward to blowing a bowl and seeing it with the kids this weekend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm talking totally impossible , acid trip inspired creatures and landscapes.You 're saying this like it 's a bad thing.Me , I 'm looking forward to blowing a bowl and seeing it with the kids this weekend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm talking totally impossible, acid trip inspired creatures and landscapes.You're saying this like it's a bad thing.Me, I'm looking forward to blowing a bowl and seeing it with the kids this weekend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544090</id>
	<title>Re:Why would you want to go with other people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261671720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people enjoy the social experience of going to a movie in a theatre with a friend or friends.  I highly doubt OP needs 'hand holding' as you suggest.</p><p>More people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. should get out of Mom's basement and socialize in the flesh it would seem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people enjoy the social experience of going to a movie in a theatre with a friend or friends .
I highly doubt OP needs 'hand holding ' as you suggest.More people on / .
should get out of Mom 's basement and socialize in the flesh it would seem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people enjoy the social experience of going to a movie in a theatre with a friend or friends.
I highly doubt OP needs 'hand holding' as you suggest.More people on /.
should get out of Mom's basement and socialize in the flesh it would seem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546432</id>
	<title>Re:Floating Mountains explained</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261687560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, it is hard because you have two small magnets.  If you tried this with a magnet the size of a planet and another the size of a mountain, let me know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , it is hard because you have two small magnets .
If you tried this with a magnet the size of a planet and another the size of a mountain , let me know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, it is hard because you have two small magnets.
If you tried this with a magnet the size of a planet and another the size of a mountain, let me know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30551738</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261767360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may be the case in the US.<br>Here in Germany, people are either very quiet, or react all at the same time because of something happening in the movie. And a whole crowd laughing at the same time just makes it more enjoyable to me. (They all even stop laughing again when they want to hear the next line.)<br>The seats are usually big, comfortable and clean. Even the floor is pretty clean. The chairs are placed so that you can always see above even big people, and we don&rsquo;t come with the car in the first place, because it&rsquo;s in the city. Or there is a large parking space.</p><p>I must say, apart from the expensive popcorn and drinks, the cinema experience is pretty good here in Germany.</p><p>The best thing was, that with Avatar being a 3D movie, they did not even check my backpack for a camera. They did not check it <em>at all</em>. I went in there with a six-pack of Pepsi bottles, a tube of chips, a bag of M&amp;Ms and some Nippon (popped rice with chocolate).<br>It also was THX, which guarantees fat bass and really makes the difference in sound.</p><p>The only thing missing, was IMAX. And maybe a good story. ^^ That would have been insane.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>On the other hand, I have really good 5.1 sound and a projector at home. So I would not even really need it. But I still think it&rsquo;s worth it to go to a cinema here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be the case in the US.Here in Germany , people are either very quiet , or react all at the same time because of something happening in the movie .
And a whole crowd laughing at the same time just makes it more enjoyable to me .
( They all even stop laughing again when they want to hear the next line .
) The seats are usually big , comfortable and clean .
Even the floor is pretty clean .
The chairs are placed so that you can always see above even big people , and we don    t come with the car in the first place , because it    s in the city .
Or there is a large parking space.I must say , apart from the expensive popcorn and drinks , the cinema experience is pretty good here in Germany.The best thing was , that with Avatar being a 3D movie , they did not even check my backpack for a camera .
They did not check it at all .
I went in there with a six-pack of Pepsi bottles , a tube of chips , a bag of M&amp;Ms and some Nippon ( popped rice with chocolate ) .It also was THX , which guarantees fat bass and really makes the difference in sound.The only thing missing , was IMAX .
And maybe a good story .
^ ^ That would have been insane .
: ) On the other hand , I have really good 5.1 sound and a projector at home .
So I would not even really need it .
But I still think it    s worth it to go to a cinema here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be the case in the US.Here in Germany, people are either very quiet, or react all at the same time because of something happening in the movie.
And a whole crowd laughing at the same time just makes it more enjoyable to me.
(They all even stop laughing again when they want to hear the next line.
)The seats are usually big, comfortable and clean.
Even the floor is pretty clean.
The chairs are placed so that you can always see above even big people, and we don’t come with the car in the first place, because it’s in the city.
Or there is a large parking space.I must say, apart from the expensive popcorn and drinks, the cinema experience is pretty good here in Germany.The best thing was, that with Avatar being a 3D movie, they did not even check my backpack for a camera.
They did not check it at all.
I went in there with a six-pack of Pepsi bottles, a tube of chips, a bag of M&amp;Ms and some Nippon (popped rice with chocolate).It also was THX, which guarantees fat bass and really makes the difference in sound.The only thing missing, was IMAX.
And maybe a good story.
^^ That would have been insane.
:)On the other hand, I have really good 5.1 sound and a projector at home.
So I would not even really need it.
But I still think it’s worth it to go to a cinema here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30602662</id>
	<title>Re:Why would you want to go with other people?</title>
	<author>Wraithlyn</author>
	<datestamp>1259858820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW, Cameron included the "We're not in Kansas line" because Wizard of Oz is his favourite film.</p><p>Saw this in an interview with Cameron (look for "T4 Avatar Film Special") where the film was compared to Oz, and Cameron said he "just had to work that line in somewhere".</p><p>Not that there aren't a fair sprinkling of absolute groaners in the movie, but at least he had a reason for that particular one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , Cameron included the " We 're not in Kansas line " because Wizard of Oz is his favourite film.Saw this in an interview with Cameron ( look for " T4 Avatar Film Special " ) where the film was compared to Oz , and Cameron said he " just had to work that line in somewhere " .Not that there are n't a fair sprinkling of absolute groaners in the movie , but at least he had a reason for that particular one .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, Cameron included the "We're not in Kansas line" because Wizard of Oz is his favourite film.Saw this in an interview with Cameron (look for "T4 Avatar Film Special") where the film was compared to Oz, and Cameron said he "just had to work that line in somewhere".Not that there aren't a fair sprinkling of absolute groaners in the movie, but at least he had a reason for that particular one.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545856</id>
	<title>Re:Hallelujah Mountains</title>
	<author>anonymousbob22</author>
	<datestamp>1261682940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The piece floating on his desk leads more towards semiconductor properties at room temperature.</p></div><p>I think you meant superconductor, not semiconductor.<br>
Unless you think the computer you typed that on is made of unobtainium...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The piece floating on his desk leads more towards semiconductor properties at room temperature.I think you meant superconductor , not semiconductor .
Unless you think the computer you typed that on is made of unobtainium.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The piece floating on his desk leads more towards semiconductor properties at room temperature.I think you meant superconductor, not semiconductor.
Unless you think the computer you typed that on is made of unobtainium...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30552164</id>
	<title>Murasaki Anthology</title>
	<author>Guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1261772940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something a little like that in the Murasaki Anthology (R. Silverberg, ed.), a collection of SF stories in a shared world by various authors.  There is a species (the Chujoans) that looks fairly primitive to the human visitors, but actually turns out to be the descendants of a race with high advanced biotech skills far ahead of our own.  The role of the inscrutable hidden god is played by the carpet whales.</p><p>There's even a character that goes native, although not voluntarily and not as hero -- well, I guess this last part is kind of a stretch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something a little like that in the Murasaki Anthology ( R. Silverberg , ed .
) , a collection of SF stories in a shared world by various authors .
There is a species ( the Chujoans ) that looks fairly primitive to the human visitors , but actually turns out to be the descendants of a race with high advanced biotech skills far ahead of our own .
The role of the inscrutable hidden god is played by the carpet whales.There 's even a character that goes native , although not voluntarily and not as hero -- well , I guess this last part is kind of a stretch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something a little like that in the Murasaki Anthology (R. Silverberg, ed.
), a collection of SF stories in a shared world by various authors.
There is a species (the Chujoans) that looks fairly primitive to the human visitors, but actually turns out to be the descendants of a race with high advanced biotech skills far ahead of our own.
The role of the inscrutable hidden god is played by the carpet whales.There's even a character that goes native, although not voluntarily and not as hero -- well, I guess this last part is kind of a stretch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545298</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>djdevon3</author>
	<datestamp>1261679340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been 3 years since I've gone to a movie theater and I actually went to see Avatar yesterday.  It was worth it.  Yes, Avatar is actually that amazing.  If your loser friends don't want to pay money to see the greatest movie ever made on the big screen that's their f***ing problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been 3 years since I 've gone to a movie theater and I actually went to see Avatar yesterday .
It was worth it .
Yes , Avatar is actually that amazing .
If your loser friends do n't want to pay money to see the greatest movie ever made on the big screen that 's their f * * * ing problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been 3 years since I've gone to a movie theater and I actually went to see Avatar yesterday.
It was worth it.
Yes, Avatar is actually that amazing.
If your loser friends don't want to pay money to see the greatest movie ever made on the big screen that's their f***ing problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30551750</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261767540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I second that. Go watch it in a cinema with at least these features:<br>- IMAX<br>- 3D<br>- THX</p><p>If there ever was a movie, where those things were essential, it&rsquo;s this one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I second that .
Go watch it in a cinema with at least these features : - IMAX- 3D- THXIf there ever was a movie , where those things were essential , it    s this one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I second that.
Go watch it in a cinema with at least these features:- IMAX- 3D- THXIf there ever was a movie, where those things were essential, it’s this one!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545004</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1261677480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot, craft, and character development don't matter, and that all that matters is effects.</p></div></blockquote><p>

As a cinematographer, I'm not going to see it either. I have no interest in VFX movies, all the chromakey work on them is far too boring to work on -- it completely limits what the camera can do (as well as what actors can do, very few work well with chromakey).<br> <br>

VFX based movies are not filmmaking -- it's working in an office job. I got into movies to be on set, to do creative things with light. VFX kills all of that stone dead.<br> <br>

By all accounts I've read or heard the story and acting in this film is very poor -- it's just VFX porn with 3D smurfs. I can look at a computer game if I wanted that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot , craft , and character development do n't matter , and that all that matters is effects .
As a cinematographer , I 'm not going to see it either .
I have no interest in VFX movies , all the chromakey work on them is far too boring to work on -- it completely limits what the camera can do ( as well as what actors can do , very few work well with chromakey ) .
VFX based movies are not filmmaking -- it 's working in an office job .
I got into movies to be on set , to do creative things with light .
VFX kills all of that stone dead .
By all accounts I 've read or heard the story and acting in this film is very poor -- it 's just VFX porn with 3D smurfs .
I can look at a computer game if I wanted that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot, craft, and character development don't matter, and that all that matters is effects.
As a cinematographer, I'm not going to see it either.
I have no interest in VFX movies, all the chromakey work on them is far too boring to work on -- it completely limits what the camera can do (as well as what actors can do, very few work well with chromakey).
VFX based movies are not filmmaking -- it's working in an office job.
I got into movies to be on set, to do creative things with light.
VFX kills all of that stone dead.
By all accounts I've read or heard the story and acting in this film is very poor -- it's just VFX porn with 3D smurfs.
I can look at a computer game if I wanted that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30549186</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1261676580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're going to judge it before you've even seen it?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Unless you watch <i>every movie that comes out</i>, you've already done it to some extent. You have to make a superficial judgment (that can be based on reviews) to choose what you're going to watch.</p><blockquote><div><p>Come to think of it, some of Shakespeare's stories were rather simple -- Romeo and Juliet, anyone?</p></div></blockquote><p>If you think only of the "action", it may be simple. But a plot consists of more than that, and the dialogues of Romeo and Juliet are exceptional.<br>Ditto for Dostoevsky's <i>The Adolescent</i>: he mostly talks to people and reflects to himself. But while not being close to his best works, it's still a deep plot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're going to judge it before you 've even seen it ?
Unless you watch every movie that comes out , you 've already done it to some extent .
You have to make a superficial judgment ( that can be based on reviews ) to choose what you 're going to watch.Come to think of it , some of Shakespeare 's stories were rather simple -- Romeo and Juliet , anyone ? If you think only of the " action " , it may be simple .
But a plot consists of more than that , and the dialogues of Romeo and Juliet are exceptional.Ditto for Dostoevsky 's The Adolescent : he mostly talks to people and reflects to himself .
But while not being close to his best works , it 's still a deep plot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're going to judge it before you've even seen it?
Unless you watch every movie that comes out, you've already done it to some extent.
You have to make a superficial judgment (that can be based on reviews) to choose what you're going to watch.Come to think of it, some of Shakespeare's stories were rather simple -- Romeo and Juliet, anyone?If you think only of the "action", it may be simple.
But a plot consists of more than that, and the dialogues of Romeo and Juliet are exceptional.Ditto for Dostoevsky's The Adolescent: he mostly talks to people and reflects to himself.
But while not being close to his best works, it's still a deep plot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545250</id>
	<title>Lower G = Weaker Lifeforms and another thing...</title>
	<author>NoSleepDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1261678980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the Christ has this not been mentioned? If you have a planet with lower gravity, the lifeforms will grow taller, but be weaker. No way should the Na'vi be stronger than the humans.

And another thing, why is the prof pointing out all the other flaws in the science of the movie, and then turning around and saying 'oh but its ok because I'd drink Jim Cameron's nyerk any day'. Jeez, the science in Avatar was HORRIBLE! Giant retarded screens everywhere, guns that shoot bullets... We have lasers, NOW, why on Earth would we still be using bullets in 140 years?

And yet another thing, why did they send in ground troops at the end? They were dropping a giant bomb and clearly had aerial superiority, ground troops were a stupid idea.

Lets be honest here, science in Avatar is utter rubbish, everything's the way it is because it looks cool, end of discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the Christ has this not been mentioned ?
If you have a planet with lower gravity , the lifeforms will grow taller , but be weaker .
No way should the Na'vi be stronger than the humans .
And another thing , why is the prof pointing out all the other flaws in the science of the movie , and then turning around and saying 'oh but its ok because I 'd drink Jim Cameron 's nyerk any day' .
Jeez , the science in Avatar was HORRIBLE !
Giant retarded screens everywhere , guns that shoot bullets... We have lasers , NOW , why on Earth would we still be using bullets in 140 years ?
And yet another thing , why did they send in ground troops at the end ?
They were dropping a giant bomb and clearly had aerial superiority , ground troops were a stupid idea .
Lets be honest here , science in Avatar is utter rubbish , everything 's the way it is because it looks cool , end of discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the Christ has this not been mentioned?
If you have a planet with lower gravity, the lifeforms will grow taller, but be weaker.
No way should the Na'vi be stronger than the humans.
And another thing, why is the prof pointing out all the other flaws in the science of the movie, and then turning around and saying 'oh but its ok because I'd drink Jim Cameron's nyerk any day'.
Jeez, the science in Avatar was HORRIBLE!
Giant retarded screens everywhere, guns that shoot bullets... We have lasers, NOW, why on Earth would we still be using bullets in 140 years?
And yet another thing, why did they send in ground troops at the end?
They were dropping a giant bomb and clearly had aerial superiority, ground troops were a stupid idea.
Lets be honest here, science in Avatar is utter rubbish, everything's the way it is because it looks cool, end of discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545830</id>
	<title>Re:As I said on the blog...</title>
	<author>ShatteredArm</author>
	<datestamp>1261682760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I posted my own review on Facebook:<p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Avatar Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying About The Plot And Love Technology</b></p><p>In case you're one of the few people left who haven't bought into the Avatar hype yet, I thought I'd provide my take on the movie. I saw it last night, so it is fresh in my mind, yet I've had some time to think about it. You've probably only heard great things about it ("Sensational entertainment....Technical breakthrough" (Ebert), "Four Stars!" (probably someone), "83" (metacritic), "OMG AVATAR IS AMAZING" (Facebook)), so perhaps I can provide a different angle. </p><p> <i>Dances With The Last Of The Pocahontas</i>...er, I mean, <i>Avatar</i>...is a classic story (and I do mean classic, since it has been told several times already) about an evil, capitalist, colonizing race which will put profit over the lives of an indigenous people who like to run around without any clothes. The evil corporation has a token scientific branch filled with environmentalists who only have peace in mind (because they need to interact with aliens, Sigourney Weaver is cast for the lead alien-interaction-biologist role). They have raised Indian (whoops, that's Na'vi) bodies which are capable of being mind controlled by humans (but only humans who have a genetic "congruency" with the Na'vi body, which was presumably created through procreation with a Na'vi). </p><p>John "Jake Sully" Smith is a former marine who lost use of his legs beating up on some Venezualans (because beating up on Venezuala is undeniably American), and he happens to have a twin brother who happened to die before he was to take control of his avatar. Smith is recruited to control the avatar, and immediately runs off into the woods, gets chased by a few large CGI animals, and encounters Pocahontas, the daughter of the local Na'vi tribe's chief. Pocahontas convinces Mr. Chief to spare Smith, after which she teaches him how to appreciate nature, trains him to become a great Na'vi warrior, and they forget the words to "Colors of the Wind." Smith learns that all nature's spirits are intertwined (literally, because the audience is stupid to understand a purely figurative spiritual intertwinement). </p><p>Back at the base (which we'll call Pandora's Box), Governor Ratcliff, who manages the outpost, and General Custer, a crazed, macho military braggard, point out that the most valuable mineral known to man, Unobtainium (there must be some deep symbolic reasoning behind this choice of a McGuffin!), is, by pure coincidence, located directly under the Na'vi home, which happens to be a giant tree. They decide that diplomacy has failed, they destroy the tree, and a large battle involving spaceships and dragons ensues (Smith manages to tame a slightly better dragon by simply flying above it, which the Na'vi, who had been in tune with nature for generations, apparently never even considered).</p><p>The battle takes up the last third or so of the movie, in with the dragons fight spaceships amidst some giant floating rocks, for which James Cameron doesn't even attempt to come up with a tenuous pseudoscientific explanation (lazy writing at its finest). The biggest travesty here is that nobody attempts to ram one of the floating mountains into an enemy dragon/warship, indicating that the mountains float for no other reason than the animators thought it would be cool. </p><p>In short, this is a movie with brilliant graphics and sheer laziness in every other respect. The story is lame, the script is terrible, and the audience is constantly insulted with lame political messages about how environmentalists are better than murderous capitalists. It is worth seeing, if only for the interesting world they created, but it is ultimately wasted effort, and will most likely be forgotten soon after its theater run is finished. </p><p>

5/10</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted my own review on Facebook : Avatar Or : How I Learned To Stop Worrying About The Plot And Love TechnologyIn case you 're one of the few people left who have n't bought into the Avatar hype yet , I thought I 'd provide my take on the movie .
I saw it last night , so it is fresh in my mind , yet I 've had some time to think about it .
You 've probably only heard great things about it ( " Sensational entertainment....Technical breakthrough " ( Ebert ) , " Four Stars !
" ( probably someone ) , " 83 " ( metacritic ) , " OMG AVATAR IS AMAZING " ( Facebook ) ) , so perhaps I can provide a different angle .
Dances With The Last Of The Pocahontas...er , I mean , Avatar...is a classic story ( and I do mean classic , since it has been told several times already ) about an evil , capitalist , colonizing race which will put profit over the lives of an indigenous people who like to run around without any clothes .
The evil corporation has a token scientific branch filled with environmentalists who only have peace in mind ( because they need to interact with aliens , Sigourney Weaver is cast for the lead alien-interaction-biologist role ) .
They have raised Indian ( whoops , that 's Na'vi ) bodies which are capable of being mind controlled by humans ( but only humans who have a genetic " congruency " with the Na'vi body , which was presumably created through procreation with a Na'vi ) .
John " Jake Sully " Smith is a former marine who lost use of his legs beating up on some Venezualans ( because beating up on Venezuala is undeniably American ) , and he happens to have a twin brother who happened to die before he was to take control of his avatar .
Smith is recruited to control the avatar , and immediately runs off into the woods , gets chased by a few large CGI animals , and encounters Pocahontas , the daughter of the local Na'vi tribe 's chief .
Pocahontas convinces Mr. Chief to spare Smith , after which she teaches him how to appreciate nature , trains him to become a great Na'vi warrior , and they forget the words to " Colors of the Wind .
" Smith learns that all nature 's spirits are intertwined ( literally , because the audience is stupid to understand a purely figurative spiritual intertwinement ) .
Back at the base ( which we 'll call Pandora 's Box ) , Governor Ratcliff , who manages the outpost , and General Custer , a crazed , macho military braggard , point out that the most valuable mineral known to man , Unobtainium ( there must be some deep symbolic reasoning behind this choice of a McGuffin !
) , is , by pure coincidence , located directly under the Na'vi home , which happens to be a giant tree .
They decide that diplomacy has failed , they destroy the tree , and a large battle involving spaceships and dragons ensues ( Smith manages to tame a slightly better dragon by simply flying above it , which the Na'vi , who had been in tune with nature for generations , apparently never even considered ) .The battle takes up the last third or so of the movie , in with the dragons fight spaceships amidst some giant floating rocks , for which James Cameron does n't even attempt to come up with a tenuous pseudoscientific explanation ( lazy writing at its finest ) .
The biggest travesty here is that nobody attempts to ram one of the floating mountains into an enemy dragon/warship , indicating that the mountains float for no other reason than the animators thought it would be cool .
In short , this is a movie with brilliant graphics and sheer laziness in every other respect .
The story is lame , the script is terrible , and the audience is constantly insulted with lame political messages about how environmentalists are better than murderous capitalists .
It is worth seeing , if only for the interesting world they created , but it is ultimately wasted effort , and will most likely be forgotten soon after its theater run is finished .
5/10</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted my own review on Facebook: Avatar Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying About The Plot And Love TechnologyIn case you're one of the few people left who haven't bought into the Avatar hype yet, I thought I'd provide my take on the movie.
I saw it last night, so it is fresh in my mind, yet I've had some time to think about it.
You've probably only heard great things about it ("Sensational entertainment....Technical breakthrough" (Ebert), "Four Stars!
" (probably someone), "83" (metacritic), "OMG AVATAR IS AMAZING" (Facebook)), so perhaps I can provide a different angle.
Dances With The Last Of The Pocahontas...er, I mean, Avatar...is a classic story (and I do mean classic, since it has been told several times already) about an evil, capitalist, colonizing race which will put profit over the lives of an indigenous people who like to run around without any clothes.
The evil corporation has a token scientific branch filled with environmentalists who only have peace in mind (because they need to interact with aliens, Sigourney Weaver is cast for the lead alien-interaction-biologist role).
They have raised Indian (whoops, that's Na'vi) bodies which are capable of being mind controlled by humans (but only humans who have a genetic "congruency" with the Na'vi body, which was presumably created through procreation with a Na'vi).
John "Jake Sully" Smith is a former marine who lost use of his legs beating up on some Venezualans (because beating up on Venezuala is undeniably American), and he happens to have a twin brother who happened to die before he was to take control of his avatar.
Smith is recruited to control the avatar, and immediately runs off into the woods, gets chased by a few large CGI animals, and encounters Pocahontas, the daughter of the local Na'vi tribe's chief.
Pocahontas convinces Mr. Chief to spare Smith, after which she teaches him how to appreciate nature, trains him to become a great Na'vi warrior, and they forget the words to "Colors of the Wind.
" Smith learns that all nature's spirits are intertwined (literally, because the audience is stupid to understand a purely figurative spiritual intertwinement).
Back at the base (which we'll call Pandora's Box), Governor Ratcliff, who manages the outpost, and General Custer, a crazed, macho military braggard, point out that the most valuable mineral known to man, Unobtainium (there must be some deep symbolic reasoning behind this choice of a McGuffin!
), is, by pure coincidence, located directly under the Na'vi home, which happens to be a giant tree.
They decide that diplomacy has failed, they destroy the tree, and a large battle involving spaceships and dragons ensues (Smith manages to tame a slightly better dragon by simply flying above it, which the Na'vi, who had been in tune with nature for generations, apparently never even considered).The battle takes up the last third or so of the movie, in with the dragons fight spaceships amidst some giant floating rocks, for which James Cameron doesn't even attempt to come up with a tenuous pseudoscientific explanation (lazy writing at its finest).
The biggest travesty here is that nobody attempts to ram one of the floating mountains into an enemy dragon/warship, indicating that the mountains float for no other reason than the animators thought it would be cool.
In short, this is a movie with brilliant graphics and sheer laziness in every other respect.
The story is lame, the script is terrible, and the audience is constantly insulted with lame political messages about how environmentalists are better than murderous capitalists.
It is worth seeing, if only for the interesting world they created, but it is ultimately wasted effort, and will most likely be forgotten soon after its theater run is finished.
5/10
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544014</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>adbge</author>
	<datestamp>1261671180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only one stopping you from going to the movies is yourself.</p><p>Get over your insecurities and go alone if you want to see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only one stopping you from going to the movies is yourself.Get over your insecurities and go alone if you want to see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only one stopping you from going to the movies is yourself.Get over your insecurities and go alone if you want to see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544490</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>iocat</author>
	<datestamp>1261674360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having seen in in 3D, I can assure you, the visuals are not "a critical piece," they are "the critical piece." This is not a movie to watch critically for plot holes or bad dialog, The 3D is great, and the CG is just stunning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having seen in in 3D , I can assure you , the visuals are not " a critical piece , " they are " the critical piece .
" This is not a movie to watch critically for plot holes or bad dialog , The 3D is great , and the CG is just stunning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having seen in in 3D, I can assure you, the visuals are not "a critical piece," they are "the critical piece.
" This is not a movie to watch critically for plot holes or bad dialog, The 3D is great, and the CG is just stunning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545590</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1261681320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Sorry, I don't believe that.  The only torrents that could possibly be available right now are screeners and camcorder rips.  The latter are generally unwatchable and I'm pretty certain Cameron has kept the screeners locked down.  It sounds more like you saw an opportunity to rant.  But clearly not thunk through all the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I do n't believe that .
The only torrents that could possibly be available right now are screeners and camcorder rips .
The latter are generally unwatchable and I 'm pretty certain Cameron has kept the screeners locked down .
It sounds more like you saw an opportunity to rant .
But clearly not thunk through all the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sorry, I don't believe that.
The only torrents that could possibly be available right now are screeners and camcorder rips.
The latter are generally unwatchable and I'm pretty certain Cameron has kept the screeners locked down.
It sounds more like you saw an opportunity to rant.
But clearly not thunk through all the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545970</id>
	<title>Re:You aren't missing anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261683600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>er...  Unobtanium is a word that's been used for sometime now, like before I was born.  Knowing the word already and then hearing it in the film I felt that either the character was making fun of how amazing this metal was, or that James Cameron was poking fun of the "made up material/substance" we so often see in sci-fi to explain things.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium</a> [wikipedia.org]</p> </div><p>Look at it this way... the guy who calls it "unobtainium" in the movie is a business major.  Do you REALLY expect him to be able to remember/pronounce the ACTUAL name of the material? Perhaps the scientists got tired of trying to explain it to people and nick-named it "unobtainium".</p><p>Boss: "...So what's this stuff called?"<br>Scientist: "Well it's a naturally-occurring superconductor exhibiting quantum--"<br>Boss: "Wait, you lost me at 'superconductor'"<br>Scientist: *sigh* "...It's called 'Unobtainium' sir."<br>Boss: "Well, why didn't you say so the first time?"</p><p>On an unrelated note, I always thought 3D movies would be "gimmick"-ey, but this was very-well done.  They don't abuse the 3D, it's just there to help.  Overall, it was a great movie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>er... Unobtanium is a word that 's been used for sometime now , like before I was born .
Knowing the word already and then hearing it in the film I felt that either the character was making fun of how amazing this metal was , or that James Cameron was poking fun of the " made up material/substance " we so often see in sci-fi to explain things.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium [ wikipedia.org ] Look at it this way... the guy who calls it " unobtainium " in the movie is a business major .
Do you REALLY expect him to be able to remember/pronounce the ACTUAL name of the material ?
Perhaps the scientists got tired of trying to explain it to people and nick-named it " unobtainium " .Boss : " ...So what 's this stuff called ?
" Scientist : " Well it 's a naturally-occurring superconductor exhibiting quantum-- " Boss : " Wait , you lost me at 'superconductor ' " Scientist : * sigh * " ...It 's called 'Unobtainium ' sir .
" Boss : " Well , why did n't you say so the first time ?
" On an unrelated note , I always thought 3D movies would be " gimmick " -ey , but this was very-well done .
They do n't abuse the 3D , it 's just there to help .
Overall , it was a great movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>er...  Unobtanium is a word that's been used for sometime now, like before I was born.
Knowing the word already and then hearing it in the film I felt that either the character was making fun of how amazing this metal was, or that James Cameron was poking fun of the "made up material/substance" we so often see in sci-fi to explain things.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium [wikipedia.org] Look at it this way... the guy who calls it "unobtainium" in the movie is a business major.
Do you REALLY expect him to be able to remember/pronounce the ACTUAL name of the material?
Perhaps the scientists got tired of trying to explain it to people and nick-named it "unobtainium".Boss: "...So what's this stuff called?
"Scientist: "Well it's a naturally-occurring superconductor exhibiting quantum--"Boss: "Wait, you lost me at 'superconductor'"Scientist: *sigh* "...It's called 'Unobtainium' sir.
"Boss: "Well, why didn't you say so the first time?
"On an unrelated note, I always thought 3D movies would be "gimmick"-ey, but this was very-well done.
They don't abuse the 3D, it's just there to help.
Overall, it was a great movie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546698</id>
	<title>Re:Why would you want to go with other people?</title>
	<author>theArtificial</author>
	<datestamp>1261647000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man you're a tough one to please and you haven't even seen the movie yet. How about watching movies to be entertained? It's not like this is a big investment of time or money. If it sucks you're only out $20 an some time (less time than you spend in traffic every year!). Do you pick apart everything? Let me guess when you watched LOTR you were decrying the use of magic as 'unrealistic' and how racist the film was!<br> <br>With that said, go watch a movie in 3D. It's pretty cool. But then again you might bitch about how it's not realistic...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man you 're a tough one to please and you have n't even seen the movie yet .
How about watching movies to be entertained ?
It 's not like this is a big investment of time or money .
If it sucks you 're only out $ 20 an some time ( less time than you spend in traffic every year ! ) .
Do you pick apart everything ?
Let me guess when you watched LOTR you were decrying the use of magic as 'unrealistic ' and how racist the film was !
With that said , go watch a movie in 3D .
It 's pretty cool .
But then again you might bitch about how it 's not realistic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man you're a tough one to please and you haven't even seen the movie yet.
How about watching movies to be entertained?
It's not like this is a big investment of time or money.
If it sucks you're only out $20 an some time (less time than you spend in traffic every year!).
Do you pick apart everything?
Let me guess when you watched LOTR you were decrying the use of magic as 'unrealistic' and how racist the film was!
With that said, go watch a movie in 3D.
It's pretty cool.
But then again you might bitch about how it's not realistic...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543952</id>
	<title>Why would you want to go with other people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261670640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then again, why would you want to go to a theater.  Action movies are best watched alone, with the sound up to reference, on a big screen, in your house (3D notwithstanding, I suppose).  If you need a friend to hold your hand, grab your Signature Visa (you do have one, right?) and get two tickets on Fandango with the B1G1 promo and offer to take someone to the movies "on you."</p><p>I haven't decided if I'm going to see it in the theater, mainly because I find the crowds annoying and the snacks too expensive. I'll probably get it and watch at home when it comes out, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again , why would you want to go to a theater .
Action movies are best watched alone , with the sound up to reference , on a big screen , in your house ( 3D notwithstanding , I suppose ) .
If you need a friend to hold your hand , grab your Signature Visa ( you do have one , right ?
) and get two tickets on Fandango with the B1G1 promo and offer to take someone to the movies " on you .
" I have n't decided if I 'm going to see it in the theater , mainly because I find the crowds annoying and the snacks too expensive .
I 'll probably get it and watch at home when it comes out , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again, why would you want to go to a theater.
Action movies are best watched alone, with the sound up to reference, on a big screen, in your house (3D notwithstanding, I suppose).
If you need a friend to hold your hand, grab your Signature Visa (you do have one, right?
) and get two tickets on Fandango with the B1G1 promo and offer to take someone to the movies "on you.
"I haven't decided if I'm going to see it in the theater, mainly because I find the crowds annoying and the snacks too expensive.
I'll probably get it and watch at home when it comes out, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543802</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>HaZardman27</author>
	<datestamp>1261669620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've had friends do the same with other movies that really need to be seen in theater to truly appreciate.  Boggles my mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had friends do the same with other movies that really need to be seen in theater to truly appreciate .
Boggles my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had friends do the same with other movies that really need to be seen in theater to truly appreciate.
Boggles my mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544108</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1261671780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I haven't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movie</p></div><p>Why exactly haven't you seen it? You can't go to the theater because your friends are downloading torrents? What, are they hogging up all the bandwidth so you can't go to movietickets.com?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.</p></div><p>Several avatar shows are sold out all through this week. <br> <br>Seriously, I'm really missing your point here.<br> <br>I saw it in 3D and I highly recommend it. It's immersive, not just a gimmick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movieWhy exactly have n't you seen it ?
You ca n't go to the theater because your friends are downloading torrents ?
What , are they hogging up all the bandwidth so you ca n't go to movietickets.com ? Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.Several avatar shows are sold out all through this week .
Seriously , I 'm really missing your point here .
I saw it in 3D and I highly recommend it .
It 's immersive , not just a gimmick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movieWhy exactly haven't you seen it?
You can't go to the theater because your friends are downloading torrents?
What, are they hogging up all the bandwidth so you can't go to movietickets.com?Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.Several avatar shows are sold out all through this week.
Seriously, I'm really missing your point here.
I saw it in 3D and I highly recommend it.
It's immersive, not just a gimmick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543816</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261669800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw it in the cinema with your mom. Well, actually, I didn't see much of the movie...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw it in the cinema with your mom .
Well , actually , I did n't see much of the movie.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw it in the cinema with your mom.
Well, actually, I didn't see much of the movie...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547690</id>
	<title>Re:Pre or POST industrial</title>
	<author>vivek7006</author>
	<datestamp>1261655760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hats off to you sir! Very thoughtful analysis. Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hats off to you sir !
Very thoughtful analysis .
Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hats off to you sir!
Very thoughtful analysis.
Thanks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544056</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1261671540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree that CGI has been mostly bad for movies, at least where it is noticeable, but the novelty will wear off.  As the novelty of CGI effects themselves wear off to the point where adding them doesn't add to the box office totals, then artists will create novelty that's actually worthwhile.  Avatar might be tending this way - there's never really been an alien world in a movie before.  I want to go see it, even if the Na'vi I've seen in trailers do look way too human.
</p><p>Last night I saw District 9.  Now that was an alien done well with CGI, with character development to boot.  Sure it was primarily humanoid, but quite far enough from humanoid to be a real alien.  You start out revolted by them, but actually come to identify with them in a realistic way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree that CGI has been mostly bad for movies , at least where it is noticeable , but the novelty will wear off .
As the novelty of CGI effects themselves wear off to the point where adding them does n't add to the box office totals , then artists will create novelty that 's actually worthwhile .
Avatar might be tending this way - there 's never really been an alien world in a movie before .
I want to go see it , even if the Na'vi I 've seen in trailers do look way too human .
Last night I saw District 9 .
Now that was an alien done well with CGI , with character development to boot .
Sure it was primarily humanoid , but quite far enough from humanoid to be a real alien .
You start out revolted by them , but actually come to identify with them in a realistic way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree that CGI has been mostly bad for movies, at least where it is noticeable, but the novelty will wear off.
As the novelty of CGI effects themselves wear off to the point where adding them doesn't add to the box office totals, then artists will create novelty that's actually worthwhile.
Avatar might be tending this way - there's never really been an alien world in a movie before.
I want to go see it, even if the Na'vi I've seen in trailers do look way too human.
Last night I saw District 9.
Now that was an alien done well with CGI, with character development to boot.
Sure it was primarily humanoid, but quite far enough from humanoid to be a real alien.
You start out revolted by them, but actually come to identify with them in a realistic way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544164</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261672260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your friends are foolish. This is precisely the sort of movie that it's worth going to the cinema for. Myself and friends watch a lot of torrented movies but we also go to the cinema regularly. It's not the fault of torrents; they are a good thing for real movie fans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your friends are foolish .
This is precisely the sort of movie that it 's worth going to the cinema for .
Myself and friends watch a lot of torrented movies but we also go to the cinema regularly .
It 's not the fault of torrents ; they are a good thing for real movie fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your friends are foolish.
This is precisely the sort of movie that it's worth going to the cinema for.
Myself and friends watch a lot of torrented movies but we also go to the cinema regularly.
It's not the fault of torrents; they are a good thing for real movie fans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546384</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261687200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I haven't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movie, some even watched horrible cam rips with a foreign language and no subs.</p><p>Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.</p><p>Fuck you, torrents.</p></div><p>Hello dick wad, you can get it at<br>thepiratebay.org you want the MAXSPEED TS, you can get the subs at SUBSCENE, google it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movie , some even watched horrible cam rips with a foreign language and no subs.Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.Fuck you , torrents.Hello dick wad , you can get it atthepiratebay.org you want the MAXSPEED TS , you can get the subs at SUBSCENE , google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movie, some even watched horrible cam rips with a foreign language and no subs.Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.Fuck you, torrents.Hello dick wad, you can get it atthepiratebay.org you want the MAXSPEED TS, you can get the subs at SUBSCENE, google it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545658</id>
	<title>Ever notice</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1261681740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you ever notice that intelligen aliens are always portraid as humans with blue or green skin in movies? I'm guessing that it's because they don't have any alien suits that their actors can fit into. Sometimes they'll throw in scales or other colors or a different size on them, but they still follow the 1 head, 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 body, upright posture theme. Many stories include sex with these aliens, and often mixed children.</p><p>Do these authors have no better ideas than to take old westerns, and just swap wagons with starships and pistols with laser beams?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you ever notice that intelligen aliens are always portraid as humans with blue or green skin in movies ?
I 'm guessing that it 's because they do n't have any alien suits that their actors can fit into .
Sometimes they 'll throw in scales or other colors or a different size on them , but they still follow the 1 head , 2 arms , 2 legs , 1 body , upright posture theme .
Many stories include sex with these aliens , and often mixed children.Do these authors have no better ideas than to take old westerns , and just swap wagons with starships and pistols with laser beams ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you ever notice that intelligen aliens are always portraid as humans with blue or green skin in movies?
I'm guessing that it's because they don't have any alien suits that their actors can fit into.
Sometimes they'll throw in scales or other colors or a different size on them, but they still follow the 1 head, 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 body, upright posture theme.
Many stories include sex with these aliens, and often mixed children.Do these authors have no better ideas than to take old westerns, and just swap wagons with starships and pistols with laser beams?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543746</id>
	<title>Haven't seen it? Who cares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261669140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I believe I might be the last person on earth who hasn't seen it; here's hoping I can find 3 free hours over the holidays."</p><p>Big deal. Why would you want to see this shitpile? I took one look at the previews for this stinker almost a year ago and said it was going to be crap. No way would I waste my time on Cameron's latest fart fest. A billion dollars in CGI and the aliens or whatever look like retarded tiger monkeys. This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and anyone who is excited for this movie is an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I believe I might be the last person on earth who has n't seen it ; here 's hoping I can find 3 free hours over the holidays .
" Big deal .
Why would you want to see this shitpile ?
I took one look at the previews for this stinker almost a year ago and said it was going to be crap .
No way would I waste my time on Cameron 's latest fart fest .
A billion dollars in CGI and the aliens or whatever look like retarded tiger monkeys .
This is the dumbest thing I 've ever seen , and anyone who is excited for this movie is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I believe I might be the last person on earth who hasn't seen it; here's hoping I can find 3 free hours over the holidays.
"Big deal.
Why would you want to see this shitpile?
I took one look at the previews for this stinker almost a year ago and said it was going to be crap.
No way would I waste my time on Cameron's latest fart fest.
A billion dollars in CGI and the aliens or whatever look like retarded tiger monkeys.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and anyone who is excited for this movie is an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30640790</id>
	<title>Re:Enh</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1231085160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw it in 3D and I really didn't like the effect.</p><p>Seemed "dimmer" than normal movies, not quite as high-hes, etc.  Wasn't worth it, and it gave me a slight headache.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:()</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw it in 3D and I really did n't like the effect.Seemed " dimmer " than normal movies , not quite as high-hes , etc .
Was n't worth it , and it gave me a slight headache .
: ( )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw it in 3D and I really didn't like the effect.Seemed "dimmer" than normal movies, not quite as high-hes, etc.
Wasn't worth it, and it gave me a slight headache.
:()</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546360</id>
	<title>Re:As I said on the blog...</title>
	<author>MaximKat</author>
	<datestamp>1261687080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, let me get this straight. You've watched half of the movie, which is intended to be seen in the 3D on the big screen, from a cam rip and you didn't like visuals? Why don't you go play Crysis in 640x480 with low quality and disabled physics then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let me get this straight .
You 've watched half of the movie , which is intended to be seen in the 3D on the big screen , from a cam rip and you did n't like visuals ?
Why do n't you go play Crysis in 640x480 with low quality and disabled physics then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let me get this straight.
You've watched half of the movie, which is intended to be seen in the 3D on the big screen, from a cam rip and you didn't like visuals?
Why don't you go play Crysis in 640x480 with low quality and disabled physics then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545202</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261678680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations, you've won the ignorant-post-of-the-day award. (And everyone who modded you "Insightful" needs to pop a couple of cyanide pills)  My wife and I went to Avatar on opening day and NONE of your complaints were in effect.  We have the same enjoyable experience every time we go to the theater (admittedly only once every three months or so).  But that's okay, you keep believing in that meme so that the adults can go enjoy a show in peace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , you 've won the ignorant-post-of-the-day award .
( And everyone who modded you " Insightful " needs to pop a couple of cyanide pills ) My wife and I went to Avatar on opening day and NONE of your complaints were in effect .
We have the same enjoyable experience every time we go to the theater ( admittedly only once every three months or so ) .
But that 's okay , you keep believing in that meme so that the adults can go enjoy a show in peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, you've won the ignorant-post-of-the-day award.
(And everyone who modded you "Insightful" needs to pop a couple of cyanide pills)  My wife and I went to Avatar on opening day and NONE of your complaints were in effect.
We have the same enjoyable experience every time we go to the theater (admittedly only once every three months or so).
But that's okay, you keep believing in that meme so that the adults can go enjoy a show in peace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543998</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261670940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I refuse to watch it. I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot, craft, and character development don't matter, and that all that matters is effects. This sort of thought has made the bulk of Hollywood movies complete crap. I'm lucky if there is one or two movies a year that aren't nauseatingly bad.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe there's room in the theaters for two different kinds of movies: those with good plot, and those with good visuals?</p><p>I saw Avatar last night.  I agree that the plot was so-so.  But the imagined planet really was beautiful, and it really stoked my imagination.  For me, it was worth the ticket price to see them.  I like plot as well, but I'm glad this movie exists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to watch it .
I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot , craft , and character development do n't matter , and that all that matters is effects .
This sort of thought has made the bulk of Hollywood movies complete crap .
I 'm lucky if there is one or two movies a year that are n't nauseatingly bad.Maybe there 's room in the theaters for two different kinds of movies : those with good plot , and those with good visuals ? I saw Avatar last night .
I agree that the plot was so-so .
But the imagined planet really was beautiful , and it really stoked my imagination .
For me , it was worth the ticket price to see them .
I like plot as well , but I 'm glad this movie exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to watch it.
I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot, craft, and character development don't matter, and that all that matters is effects.
This sort of thought has made the bulk of Hollywood movies complete crap.
I'm lucky if there is one or two movies a year that aren't nauseatingly bad.Maybe there's room in the theaters for two different kinds of movies: those with good plot, and those with good visuals?I saw Avatar last night.
I agree that the plot was so-so.
But the imagined planet really was beautiful, and it really stoked my imagination.
For me, it was worth the ticket price to see them.
I like plot as well, but I'm glad this movie exists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545520</id>
	<title>Sort of Spoiler Alert for below</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261680840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the science of using magical trees to transfer consciousness from a human brain to a Na'vi brain?  Are our thoughts and impulses an interpreted language?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the science of using magical trees to transfer consciousness from a human brain to a Na'vi brain ?
Are our thoughts and impulses an interpreted language ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the science of using magical trees to transfer consciousness from a human brain to a Na'vi brain?
Are our thoughts and impulses an interpreted language?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544098</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>Venerence</author>
	<datestamp>1261671720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have never seen this movie, heard nothing but good things about it, and it has a gigantic budget, so therefore it's terrible and I will never see it. Yet somehow I think I can write an opinion about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never seen this movie , heard nothing but good things about it , and it has a gigantic budget , so therefore it 's terrible and I will never see it .
Yet somehow I think I can write an opinion about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never seen this movie, heard nothing but good things about it, and it has a gigantic budget, so therefore it's terrible and I will never see it.
Yet somehow I think I can write an opinion about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544602</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>joss</author>
	<datestamp>1261675080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your shit is all retarded and you talk like a fag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your shit is all retarded and you talk like a fag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your shit is all retarded and you talk like a fag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30620166</id>
	<title>Re:Lower G = Weaker Lifeforms and another thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230839760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Lets be honest here, science in Avatar is utter rubbish, everything's the way it is because it looks cool, end of discussion.</p><p>Okay, but the gravity issue is the only thing you mentioned which is science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Lets be honest here , science in Avatar is utter rubbish , everything 's the way it is because it looks cool , end of discussion.Okay , but the gravity issue is the only thing you mentioned which is science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Lets be honest here, science in Avatar is utter rubbish, everything's the way it is because it looks cool, end of discussion.Okay, but the gravity issue is the only thing you mentioned which is science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543838</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1261669920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with going to the cinema alone? Are you addicted to the peer pressure or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with going to the cinema alone ?
Are you addicted to the peer pressure or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with going to the cinema alone?
Are you addicted to the peer pressure or what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800</id>
	<title>TFA is full of flaws itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261669620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, Pandora does have an oxygen atmosphere, or how else could you explain the burning torch that Jake Sully lights up in self-defense against the wulf-like creatures at night?</p><p>Second, the floating mountains are explained by assuming that the rock is made up of superconducting material ("Unobtainium") and that the flux they keep talking about is actually a strong magnetic field. Superconductors tend to hover in magnetic fields, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , Pandora does have an oxygen atmosphere , or how else could you explain the burning torch that Jake Sully lights up in self-defense against the wulf-like creatures at night ? Second , the floating mountains are explained by assuming that the rock is made up of superconducting material ( " Unobtainium " ) and that the flux they keep talking about is actually a strong magnetic field .
Superconductors tend to hover in magnetic fields , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, Pandora does have an oxygen atmosphere, or how else could you explain the burning torch that Jake Sully lights up in self-defense against the wulf-like creatures at night?Second, the floating mountains are explained by assuming that the rock is made up of superconducting material ("Unobtainium") and that the flux they keep talking about is actually a strong magnetic field.
Superconductors tend to hover in magnetic fields, you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544050</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1261671480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went with 11 friends to go see it, so I'm sure we'll make up for your ticket<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went with 11 friends to go see it , so I 'm sure we 'll make up for your ticket ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went with 11 friends to go see it, so I'm sure we'll make up for your ticket ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547272</id>
	<title>James Cameron the New Al Gore?</title>
	<author>stoicfaux</author>
	<datestamp>1261652520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the heavy environmental message in the movie, does anyone think that Cameron's Avatar will have a greater influence on the green movement than Al Gore?  Think of all the kids/teens/pre-adults who saw the movie, were impressed by it, and how it will influence them as they grow up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the heavy environmental message in the movie , does anyone think that Cameron 's Avatar will have a greater influence on the green movement than Al Gore ?
Think of all the kids/teens/pre-adults who saw the movie , were impressed by it , and how it will influence them as they grow up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the heavy environmental message in the movie, does anyone think that Cameron's Avatar will have a greater influence on the green movement than Al Gore?
Think of all the kids/teens/pre-adults who saw the movie, were impressed by it, and how it will influence them as they grow up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543964</id>
	<title>More overyped than Daikatana?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261670700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't seen it and don't intend to...it looks like it was made for furries and substitutes flashy graphics for substance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen it and do n't intend to...it looks like it was made for furries and substitutes flashy graphics for substance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen it and don't intend to...it looks like it was made for furries and substitutes flashy graphics for substance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546152</id>
	<title>Re:As I said on the blog...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1261685160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Frankly the whole film smacks of a bunch of CGI geeks being given an unlimited budget and no rules,</i></p><p>And I'm glad they were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly the whole film smacks of a bunch of CGI geeks being given an unlimited budget and no rules,And I 'm glad they were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly the whole film smacks of a bunch of CGI geeks being given an unlimited budget and no rules,And I'm glad they were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546026</id>
	<title>Re:Pre or POST industrial</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1261684080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That's a brilliant analysis.  I wish there had been more of that in the film, instead of a rehashed action plot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a brilliant analysis .
I wish there had been more of that in the film , instead of a rehashed action plot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That's a brilliant analysis.
I wish there had been more of that in the film, instead of a rehashed action plot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545902</id>
	<title>Re:Lifeforms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261683180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Consider how incredibly rare life on other planets is.</p></div> </blockquote><p>How rare is it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider how incredibly rare life on other planets is .
How rare is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Consider how incredibly rare life on other planets is.
How rare is it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30549680</id>
	<title>The game of Avatar explains a lot more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261773060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have any of you played the actual game based on this movie. Its got its only little pandorapedia which explains why humans came to this earth, why different people are selected to be avatars the wildlife etc. Its really fascinating to read. Mind you the game it self is average, but the information it contains is great.</p><p>It explains why they need unobtainium for earth. atm i cant remember why, but it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have any of you played the actual game based on this movie .
Its got its only little pandorapedia which explains why humans came to this earth , why different people are selected to be avatars the wildlife etc .
Its really fascinating to read .
Mind you the game it self is average , but the information it contains is great.It explains why they need unobtainium for earth .
atm i cant remember why , but it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have any of you played the actual game based on this movie.
Its got its only little pandorapedia which explains why humans came to this earth, why different people are selected to be avatars the wildlife etc.
Its really fascinating to read.
Mind you the game it self is average, but the information it contains is great.It explains why they need unobtainium for earth.
atm i cant remember why, but it does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000</id>
	<title>Pre or POST industrial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261677480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone seems to be making the ASSUMPTION the the Na'vi are preindustrial.</p><p>1. The Na'vi can link directly to many other animals that are happy to serve them, and and the Na'vi in return care for them.</p><p>2. Planet wide network for storage, upload and download of information, long term store, processing, and on demand local grid processing, including the ability to do a total upload of a person.</p><p>3. Unobtainium, a planet wide "natural" super conductor that allows for floating mountains.</p><p>4. Eywa, the operating system put in place to regulate everything, including guiding the Na'vi to stay in harmony with everything else.</p><p>It seems to me that the Na'vi went though their own singularity, and what we see as primitive is the biotechnology leftovers from a older culture,  but they have set themselves and their decedents with a ideal environment, the ability to live, have kids, grow old, then upload when the time is right. Use large off-planet element nuclear synthesis to create the unobtainium, (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_of\_stability" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_of\_stability</a> [wikipedia.org] ), and setup the biosphere and the infosphere for long term in habitation by ignorant people. In a head to head comparison of Na'vi vs humans, the Na'vi are superior in almost everyway.</p><p>Medicine - Eywa takes care of that much better.<br>Education - A direct mental link for sharing of information.<br>Physical form -  not much is explained beyond carbon fiber in the skeleton, but onscreen of what Jake goes though is beyond what a normal human can handle.<br>Information storage, processing &amp; retrieval mostly superior, with the exception of speed given the late start the other animals had in the battle.<br>Long term care of their wold and sustainability - Although the world seems genetically engineered for the Na'vi,over time some drift has occurred as not all animals retain their friendliness, but in times of crises, can revert back.</p><p>Given that this is part 1 of 3, and the hints on screen and referenced to, this is my suspicion. Most people have problems thinking about the singularity as it is so encompassing, enabling, and yet compressing. The Na'vi are just one result of who remains after a biological singularity.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone seems to be making the ASSUMPTION the the Na'vi are preindustrial.1 .
The Na'vi can link directly to many other animals that are happy to serve them , and and the Na'vi in return care for them.2 .
Planet wide network for storage , upload and download of information , long term store , processing , and on demand local grid processing , including the ability to do a total upload of a person.3 .
Unobtainium , a planet wide " natural " super conductor that allows for floating mountains.4 .
Eywa , the operating system put in place to regulate everything , including guiding the Na'vi to stay in harmony with everything else.It seems to me that the Na'vi went though their own singularity , and what we see as primitive is the biotechnology leftovers from a older culture , but they have set themselves and their decedents with a ideal environment , the ability to live , have kids , grow old , then upload when the time is right .
Use large off-planet element nuclear synthesis to create the unobtainium , ( see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island \ _of \ _stability [ wikipedia.org ] ) , and setup the biosphere and the infosphere for long term in habitation by ignorant people .
In a head to head comparison of Na'vi vs humans , the Na'vi are superior in almost everyway.Medicine - Eywa takes care of that much better.Education - A direct mental link for sharing of information.Physical form - not much is explained beyond carbon fiber in the skeleton , but onscreen of what Jake goes though is beyond what a normal human can handle.Information storage , processing &amp; retrieval mostly superior , with the exception of speed given the late start the other animals had in the battle.Long term care of their wold and sustainability - Although the world seems genetically engineered for the Na'vi,over time some drift has occurred as not all animals retain their friendliness , but in times of crises , can revert back.Given that this is part 1 of 3 , and the hints on screen and referenced to , this is my suspicion .
Most people have problems thinking about the singularity as it is so encompassing , enabling , and yet compressing .
The Na'vi are just one result of who remains after a biological singularity .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone seems to be making the ASSUMPTION the the Na'vi are preindustrial.1.
The Na'vi can link directly to many other animals that are happy to serve them, and and the Na'vi in return care for them.2.
Planet wide network for storage, upload and download of information, long term store, processing, and on demand local grid processing, including the ability to do a total upload of a person.3.
Unobtainium, a planet wide "natural" super conductor that allows for floating mountains.4.
Eywa, the operating system put in place to regulate everything, including guiding the Na'vi to stay in harmony with everything else.It seems to me that the Na'vi went though their own singularity, and what we see as primitive is the biotechnology leftovers from a older culture,  but they have set themselves and their decedents with a ideal environment, the ability to live, have kids, grow old, then upload when the time is right.
Use large off-planet element nuclear synthesis to create the unobtainium, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_of\_stability [wikipedia.org] ), and setup the biosphere and the infosphere for long term in habitation by ignorant people.
In a head to head comparison of Na'vi vs humans, the Na'vi are superior in almost everyway.Medicine - Eywa takes care of that much better.Education - A direct mental link for sharing of information.Physical form -  not much is explained beyond carbon fiber in the skeleton, but onscreen of what Jake goes though is beyond what a normal human can handle.Information storage, processing &amp; retrieval mostly superior, with the exception of speed given the late start the other animals had in the battle.Long term care of their wold and sustainability - Although the world seems genetically engineered for the Na'vi,over time some drift has occurred as not all animals retain their friendliness, but in times of crises, can revert back.Given that this is part 1 of 3, and the hints on screen and referenced to, this is my suspicion.
Most people have problems thinking about the singularity as it is so encompassing, enabling, and yet compressing.
The Na'vi are just one result of who remains after a biological singularity.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30553446</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1261749000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what they said about painting during the advent of the camera, and what they said about theater at the advent of the movie. Even if you have CGI, you still need to do all the lighting, cinematography, sets, costumes, make-up, acting, story-telling, etc. You still need to employ all those artists. Only difference is, it's all virtual, instead of in real life. <br> <br>Or did you think they simply let a computer whir for a few years, while they shoveled money into a furnace underneath it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what they said about painting during the advent of the camera , and what they said about theater at the advent of the movie .
Even if you have CGI , you still need to do all the lighting , cinematography , sets , costumes , make-up , acting , story-telling , etc .
You still need to employ all those artists .
Only difference is , it 's all virtual , instead of in real life .
Or did you think they simply let a computer whir for a few years , while they shoveled money into a furnace underneath it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what they said about painting during the advent of the camera, and what they said about theater at the advent of the movie.
Even if you have CGI, you still need to do all the lighting, cinematography, sets, costumes, make-up, acting, story-telling, etc.
You still need to employ all those artists.
Only difference is, it's all virtual, instead of in real life.
Or did you think they simply let a computer whir for a few years, while they shoveled money into a furnace underneath it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544330</id>
	<title>What ever happened to Suspension of disbelief</title>
	<author>justdaven</author>
	<datestamp>1261673220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a work of fiction and a movie.  Meant for entertainment value.  I enjoyed the movie, and thought it was a great experience.

Those of you who don't want to see it, don't. But stop being a mindless drone (that you accuse others of being), by trashing something you have no experience of.

Get a life!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a work of fiction and a movie .
Meant for entertainment value .
I enjoyed the movie , and thought it was a great experience .
Those of you who do n't want to see it , do n't .
But stop being a mindless drone ( that you accuse others of being ) , by trashing something you have no experience of .
Get a life !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a work of fiction and a movie.
Meant for entertainment value.
I enjoyed the movie, and thought it was a great experience.
Those of you who don't want to see it, don't.
But stop being a mindless drone (that you accuse others of being), by trashing something you have no experience of.
Get a life!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546700</id>
	<title>Re:Pre or POST industrial</title>
	<author>NoSleepDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1261647000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if all of what you say is true, why didn't the God step in and save them immediately? Why did it let them come to harm in the first place? The Na'vi are in no way superior to humans, where are their scholars, their artists, their inventors? They are entirely dependent on their God for everything, and when that God took 3 months to lift a finger, hundreds died. If the na'vi did indeed reach a singularity, that singularity was Idiocracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if all of what you say is true , why did n't the God step in and save them immediately ?
Why did it let them come to harm in the first place ?
The Na'vi are in no way superior to humans , where are their scholars , their artists , their inventors ?
They are entirely dependent on their God for everything , and when that God took 3 months to lift a finger , hundreds died .
If the na'vi did indeed reach a singularity , that singularity was Idiocracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if all of what you say is true, why didn't the God step in and save them immediately?
Why did it let them come to harm in the first place?
The Na'vi are in no way superior to humans, where are their scholars, their artists, their inventors?
They are entirely dependent on their God for everything, and when that God took 3 months to lift a finger, hundreds died.
If the na'vi did indeed reach a singularity, that singularity was Idiocracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546714</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261647180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They \_were\_ trashy pulp theater at the time. The groundlings didn't give a shit about Shakespeare's poetry (neither did the actors, for that matter). He snuck good literature into his plays, it wasn't the selling point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They \ _were \ _ trashy pulp theater at the time .
The groundlings did n't give a shit about Shakespeare 's poetry ( neither did the actors , for that matter ) .
He snuck good literature into his plays , it was n't the selling point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They \_were\_ trashy pulp theater at the time.
The groundlings didn't give a shit about Shakespeare's poetry (neither did the actors, for that matter).
He snuck good literature into his plays, it wasn't the selling point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548452</id>
	<title>Re:Lower G = Weaker Lifeforms and another thing...</title>
	<author>Alpha830RulZ</author>
	<datestamp>1261665000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We have lasers, NOW, why on Earth would we still be using bullets in 140 years?</i></p><p>Because projectile weapons might still have the combat advantage due to the weight of the ammunition required.  A laser weapon (or phaser, or blaster, etc) will require some source of power.  Making a significant source of power small enough for a handheld weapon is non-trivial.  Even a taser is bulky compared to a regular pistol.</p><p>To illustrate the import of this, the M-16 was chambered for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.223 (5.56mm NATO) over the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.308 (7.62mm NATO) cartridge primarily because the light weight of the cartridge would allow troops to carry more rounds/shots of  ammunition.  This cartridge allows you to kill someone up to 400 yards away, yet weighs just a few grams.  A laser would have to be pretty good to beat this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have lasers , NOW , why on Earth would we still be using bullets in 140 years ? Because projectile weapons might still have the combat advantage due to the weight of the ammunition required .
A laser weapon ( or phaser , or blaster , etc ) will require some source of power .
Making a significant source of power small enough for a handheld weapon is non-trivial .
Even a taser is bulky compared to a regular pistol.To illustrate the import of this , the M-16 was chambered for the .223 ( 5.56mm NATO ) over the .308 ( 7.62mm NATO ) cartridge primarily because the light weight of the cartridge would allow troops to carry more rounds/shots of ammunition .
This cartridge allows you to kill someone up to 400 yards away , yet weighs just a few grams .
A laser would have to be pretty good to beat this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have lasers, NOW, why on Earth would we still be using bullets in 140 years?Because projectile weapons might still have the combat advantage due to the weight of the ammunition required.
A laser weapon (or phaser, or blaster, etc) will require some source of power.
Making a significant source of power small enough for a handheld weapon is non-trivial.
Even a taser is bulky compared to a regular pistol.To illustrate the import of this, the M-16 was chambered for the .223 (5.56mm NATO) over the .308 (7.62mm NATO) cartridge primarily because the light weight of the cartridge would allow troops to carry more rounds/shots of  ammunition.
This cartridge allows you to kill someone up to 400 yards away, yet weighs just a few grams.
A laser would have to be pretty good to beat this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548840</id>
	<title>Superconducting mountains</title>
	<author>simplerThanPossible</author>
	<datestamp>1261671720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unobtainium floats. The mountains float.  The mountains are on Pandora, which is being mined for... unobtainium.  The mountains are located in a region of especially strong interference.</p><p>I'm thinking there could be a connection...</p><p>However, the plot called for the largest deposit of unobtainable to be under the local's giant tree.  The non-floating tree.  So, I'm not sure what to think here, except that perhaps it was a distortion to serve the plot, or (a nicer justification) that the mountains have much larger deposit, but they are too remote/difficult to mine. That is, the local's giant tree has the largest *accessible* deposit.</p><p>A quick search reveals that unobtainium is a room-temperature super-conductor, hence the magnetic levitation trick that we've all seen before; the floating mountains, and the interference.  At this point, James Cameron has more credibility than our astrophysicist reviewer.  Also, I'm expecting that Orson Scott Card helped out with the script/screenplay/world, because (1) he did so with Cameron's *The Abyss*; and (2) many of the ideas in the film have appeared in Card's work; and (3) Card is a notably mythic-oriented story-teller, as is Cameron.  I may be wrong, but You heard it here first!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unobtainium floats .
The mountains float .
The mountains are on Pandora , which is being mined for... unobtainium. The mountains are located in a region of especially strong interference.I 'm thinking there could be a connection...However , the plot called for the largest deposit of unobtainable to be under the local 's giant tree .
The non-floating tree .
So , I 'm not sure what to think here , except that perhaps it was a distortion to serve the plot , or ( a nicer justification ) that the mountains have much larger deposit , but they are too remote/difficult to mine .
That is , the local 's giant tree has the largest * accessible * deposit.A quick search reveals that unobtainium is a room-temperature super-conductor , hence the magnetic levitation trick that we 've all seen before ; the floating mountains , and the interference .
At this point , James Cameron has more credibility than our astrophysicist reviewer .
Also , I 'm expecting that Orson Scott Card helped out with the script/screenplay/world , because ( 1 ) he did so with Cameron 's * The Abyss * ; and ( 2 ) many of the ideas in the film have appeared in Card 's work ; and ( 3 ) Card is a notably mythic-oriented story-teller , as is Cameron .
I may be wrong , but You heard it here first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unobtainium floats.
The mountains float.
The mountains are on Pandora, which is being mined for... unobtainium.  The mountains are located in a region of especially strong interference.I'm thinking there could be a connection...However, the plot called for the largest deposit of unobtainable to be under the local's giant tree.
The non-floating tree.
So, I'm not sure what to think here, except that perhaps it was a distortion to serve the plot, or (a nicer justification) that the mountains have much larger deposit, but they are too remote/difficult to mine.
That is, the local's giant tree has the largest *accessible* deposit.A quick search reveals that unobtainium is a room-temperature super-conductor, hence the magnetic levitation trick that we've all seen before; the floating mountains, and the interference.
At this point, James Cameron has more credibility than our astrophysicist reviewer.
Also, I'm expecting that Orson Scott Card helped out with the script/screenplay/world, because (1) he did so with Cameron's *The Abyss*; and (2) many of the ideas in the film have appeared in Card's work; and (3) Card is a notably mythic-oriented story-teller, as is Cameron.
I may be wrong, but You heard it here first!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544160</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1261672260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I refuse to watch it.  I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot, craft, and character development don't matter</p></div><p>Plot is there, it's just not entirely original. It is standing on the shoulders of movies with GOOD plot, so it's not like the plot is terrible, just predictable.</p><p>Character development is rather well. You might not fully relate to the protagonist, especially since I was not in the military, but regardless you do begin to get inside his head (which might seem like a little bit of a pun).</p><p>As for craft, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Story development? Isn't that Plot? Or do you mean crafting the movie... Most people would argue that "Effects" ARE the craft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to watch it .
I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot , craft , and character development do n't matterPlot is there , it 's just not entirely original .
It is standing on the shoulders of movies with GOOD plot , so it 's not like the plot is terrible , just predictable.Character development is rather well .
You might not fully relate to the protagonist , especially since I was not in the military , but regardless you do begin to get inside his head ( which might seem like a little bit of a pun ) .As for craft , I 'm not sure what you mean by that .
Story development ?
Is n't that Plot ?
Or do you mean crafting the movie... Most people would argue that " Effects " ARE the craft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to watch it.
I am not going to vote with my pocketbook that plot, craft, and character development don't matterPlot is there, it's just not entirely original.
It is standing on the shoulders of movies with GOOD plot, so it's not like the plot is terrible, just predictable.Character development is rather well.
You might not fully relate to the protagonist, especially since I was not in the military, but regardless you do begin to get inside his head (which might seem like a little bit of a pun).As for craft, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Story development?
Isn't that Plot?
Or do you mean crafting the movie... Most people would argue that "Effects" ARE the craft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545786</id>
	<title>Enh</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1261682460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I saw the film in 3D, which incidentally is the only way to see it -- accept no substitutes -- and while I was amazed overall at the technology, I was somewhat chagrined at the shockingly pedestrian plot.  It's like Cameron spent ten years creating this amazingly detailed world and then couldn't think of a story to tell within it.  So he ended up adapting a story that had been told a half dozen times already in the last 20 years, and hoped people would be entranced by the pretty lights and not notice that nothing much was going on.
</p><p>
The film is long, (nearly 3 hours) which is ok -- I like movies that take their time telling a story -- but this particular story could easily have been told in 2 hours or less.  There's about 45 extra minutes of "look at these effects, aren't I a great director???" which I guess is understandable considering the time and cost of making the thing.  But it gets overwhelming after a time, and to no good purpose.
</p><p>
The film has been called "Fern Gully 3D", "Dances with Smurfs", "Delgo 2.0" and other things, which isn't quite fair, but I really wish, since Cameron was the first with this really unique story-telling technology, that he had thought of a really unique story to tell.  I know, Hollywood has lately been the Land of Nothing New, but I had hopes for this one.  Oh well.  Now that the technology exists, perhaps an interesting film will eventually be made with it.
</p><p>
At least it's not The Phantom Menace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw the film in 3D , which incidentally is the only way to see it -- accept no substitutes -- and while I was amazed overall at the technology , I was somewhat chagrined at the shockingly pedestrian plot .
It 's like Cameron spent ten years creating this amazingly detailed world and then could n't think of a story to tell within it .
So he ended up adapting a story that had been told a half dozen times already in the last 20 years , and hoped people would be entranced by the pretty lights and not notice that nothing much was going on .
The film is long , ( nearly 3 hours ) which is ok -- I like movies that take their time telling a story -- but this particular story could easily have been told in 2 hours or less .
There 's about 45 extra minutes of " look at these effects , are n't I a great director ? ? ?
" which I guess is understandable considering the time and cost of making the thing .
But it gets overwhelming after a time , and to no good purpose .
The film has been called " Fern Gully 3D " , " Dances with Smurfs " , " Delgo 2.0 " and other things , which is n't quite fair , but I really wish , since Cameron was the first with this really unique story-telling technology , that he had thought of a really unique story to tell .
I know , Hollywood has lately been the Land of Nothing New , but I had hopes for this one .
Oh well .
Now that the technology exists , perhaps an interesting film will eventually be made with it .
At least it 's not The Phantom Menace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I saw the film in 3D, which incidentally is the only way to see it -- accept no substitutes -- and while I was amazed overall at the technology, I was somewhat chagrined at the shockingly pedestrian plot.
It's like Cameron spent ten years creating this amazingly detailed world and then couldn't think of a story to tell within it.
So he ended up adapting a story that had been told a half dozen times already in the last 20 years, and hoped people would be entranced by the pretty lights and not notice that nothing much was going on.
The film is long, (nearly 3 hours) which is ok -- I like movies that take their time telling a story -- but this particular story could easily have been told in 2 hours or less.
There's about 45 extra minutes of "look at these effects, aren't I a great director???
" which I guess is understandable considering the time and cost of making the thing.
But it gets overwhelming after a time, and to no good purpose.
The film has been called "Fern Gully 3D", "Dances with Smurfs", "Delgo 2.0" and other things, which isn't quite fair, but I really wish, since Cameron was the first with this really unique story-telling technology, that he had thought of a really unique story to tell.
I know, Hollywood has lately been the Land of Nothing New, but I had hopes for this one.
Oh well.
Now that the technology exists, perhaps an interesting film will eventually be made with it.
At least it's not The Phantom Menace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544218</id>
	<title>Hallelujah Mountains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261672560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found this very plausible given what we know about superconductors: The Hallelujah Mountains are floating islands that circulate slowly in the magnetic currents like icebergs at sea, scraping against each other and the towering mesa-like mountains of the region. On Pandora, the magnetic effect causes huge outcroppings of Unobtainium to rip loose from the surface and float in the magnetic vortices. The stone 'arcs' you saw in the film supported this, where the minerals actually deposited along strong magentic lines, leaving those huge 'skeleton' looking structures.</p><p>I can only assume the large deposit under the tree is either too deep down to have torn lose from the surface, too spread out or sparse to tend to rip out, or it is held into place by the huge root system of the tree itself. Given that a tree that large would take eons to grow to that size, the deposits may have formed there during that time due to some sort of cataclysm, or some other natural process. The movie never explains exactly what Unobtainium is other than it's obvious natural magnetic properties. The piece floating on his desk leads more towards semiconductor properties at room temperature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found this very plausible given what we know about superconductors : The Hallelujah Mountains are floating islands that circulate slowly in the magnetic currents like icebergs at sea , scraping against each other and the towering mesa-like mountains of the region .
On Pandora , the magnetic effect causes huge outcroppings of Unobtainium to rip loose from the surface and float in the magnetic vortices .
The stone 'arcs ' you saw in the film supported this , where the minerals actually deposited along strong magentic lines , leaving those huge 'skeleton ' looking structures.I can only assume the large deposit under the tree is either too deep down to have torn lose from the surface , too spread out or sparse to tend to rip out , or it is held into place by the huge root system of the tree itself .
Given that a tree that large would take eons to grow to that size , the deposits may have formed there during that time due to some sort of cataclysm , or some other natural process .
The movie never explains exactly what Unobtainium is other than it 's obvious natural magnetic properties .
The piece floating on his desk leads more towards semiconductor properties at room temperature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found this very plausible given what we know about superconductors: The Hallelujah Mountains are floating islands that circulate slowly in the magnetic currents like icebergs at sea, scraping against each other and the towering mesa-like mountains of the region.
On Pandora, the magnetic effect causes huge outcroppings of Unobtainium to rip loose from the surface and float in the magnetic vortices.
The stone 'arcs' you saw in the film supported this, where the minerals actually deposited along strong magentic lines, leaving those huge 'skeleton' looking structures.I can only assume the large deposit under the tree is either too deep down to have torn lose from the surface, too spread out or sparse to tend to rip out, or it is held into place by the huge root system of the tree itself.
Given that a tree that large would take eons to grow to that size, the deposits may have formed there during that time due to some sort of cataclysm, or some other natural process.
The movie never explains exactly what Unobtainium is other than it's obvious natural magnetic properties.
The piece floating on his desk leads more towards semiconductor properties at room temperature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544096</id>
	<title>Mainstream video SF in a nutshell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261671720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All planets with life have trees, reptiles, insects, and of course bipedal creatures who have two eyes, four limbs, a head with two eyes one nose one mouth, and generally caucasian-human features. Those humanoids have technology in line with something in our history, they use speech, they have two sexes and reproduce like we do, and they breathe and eat things we can breathe and eat.</p><p>The only real question -- the really important one -- is do they natively speak modern English, or do they speak something which sounds a little bit different from some other Earth language? That is how you can tell just how utterly alien they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All planets with life have trees , reptiles , insects , and of course bipedal creatures who have two eyes , four limbs , a head with two eyes one nose one mouth , and generally caucasian-human features .
Those humanoids have technology in line with something in our history , they use speech , they have two sexes and reproduce like we do , and they breathe and eat things we can breathe and eat.The only real question -- the really important one -- is do they natively speak modern English , or do they speak something which sounds a little bit different from some other Earth language ?
That is how you can tell just how utterly alien they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All planets with life have trees, reptiles, insects, and of course bipedal creatures who have two eyes, four limbs, a head with two eyes one nose one mouth, and generally caucasian-human features.
Those humanoids have technology in line with something in our history, they use speech, they have two sexes and reproduce like we do, and they breathe and eat things we can breathe and eat.The only real question -- the really important one -- is do they natively speak modern English, or do they speak something which sounds a little bit different from some other Earth language?
That is how you can tell just how utterly alien they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</id>
	<title>I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261668840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movie, some even watched horrible cam rips with a foreign language and no subs.</p><p>Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.</p><p>Fuck you, torrents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movie , some even watched horrible cam rips with a foreign language and no subs.Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.Fuck you , torrents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen it because all of my friends have torrented the damn movie, some even watched horrible cam rips with a foreign language and no subs.Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.Fuck you, torrents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1261671600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seconded -- it actually almost makes me physically ill to think of the fact that Avatar will probably make close to (if not more than) a billion dollars while thousands of brilliant, thoughtful films wallow in obscurity. We are no longer a nation that takes pride in greatness -- we reward mediocrity and shun anything that might challenge our preconceived notions. Our entire nation is roughly at the emotional development level of an 11 year old -- just turn on the television, radio, or walk into your local multiplex if you don't believe me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seconded -- it actually almost makes me physically ill to think of the fact that Avatar will probably make close to ( if not more than ) a billion dollars while thousands of brilliant , thoughtful films wallow in obscurity .
We are no longer a nation that takes pride in greatness -- we reward mediocrity and shun anything that might challenge our preconceived notions .
Our entire nation is roughly at the emotional development level of an 11 year old -- just turn on the television , radio , or walk into your local multiplex if you do n't believe me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seconded -- it actually almost makes me physically ill to think of the fact that Avatar will probably make close to (if not more than) a billion dollars while thousands of brilliant, thoughtful films wallow in obscurity.
We are no longer a nation that takes pride in greatness -- we reward mediocrity and shun anything that might challenge our preconceived notions.
Our entire nation is roughly at the emotional development level of an 11 year old -- just turn on the television, radio, or walk into your local multiplex if you don't believe me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30549464</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261681020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it looks like your average uninspired children's cartoon anyway. i'll just pass on it completely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it looks like your average uninspired children 's cartoon anyway .
i 'll just pass on it completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it looks like your average uninspired children's cartoon anyway.
i'll just pass on it completely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546174</id>
	<title>Re:Floating Mountains explained</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1261685280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is very silly, as minor magnetic perturbations would make the mountains flail about wildly, just as trying to hold a magnet up in the air with another magnet is very difficult.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You mean difficult like <a href="http://www.fys.uio.no/super/levitation/" title="fys.uio.no">this</a> [fys.uio.no]?  Or how about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XEQVnIFmQ" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com]?  Looks pretty easy to me.  Minor magnetic perturbations would not make the mountains flail about wildly because they have a high MASS.  It would take a great big magnetic fluctuation to do move a large mass.  I wager that the only thing that could do that would be a magnetic pole flipping, but since the human race hasn't seen one of these in our recorded history we have no idea how they take place so I think we can forgive that one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is very silly , as minor magnetic perturbations would make the mountains flail about wildly , just as trying to hold a magnet up in the air with another magnet is very difficult .
You mean difficult like this [ fys.uio.no ] ?
Or how about this [ youtube.com ] ?
Looks pretty easy to me .
Minor magnetic perturbations would not make the mountains flail about wildly because they have a high MASS .
It would take a great big magnetic fluctuation to do move a large mass .
I wager that the only thing that could do that would be a magnetic pole flipping , but since the human race has n't seen one of these in our recorded history we have no idea how they take place so I think we can forgive that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is very silly, as minor magnetic perturbations would make the mountains flail about wildly, just as trying to hold a magnet up in the air with another magnet is very difficult.
You mean difficult like this [fys.uio.no]?
Or how about this [youtube.com]?
Looks pretty easy to me.
Minor magnetic perturbations would not make the mountains flail about wildly because they have a high MASS.
It would take a great big magnetic fluctuation to do move a large mass.
I wager that the only thing that could do that would be a magnetic pole flipping, but since the human race hasn't seen one of these in our recorded history we have no idea how they take place so I think we can forgive that one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544140</id>
	<title>Floating Mountains explained</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1261672080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen the film, in IMAX 3D (gave me a two day headache) - and I guess I missed the giant stone arches near the end of the film.<br> <br>
But, somebody who worked on the film anonymously emailed the writer of the article to explain some of the problems they saw. Namely: the gas giant rotating faster than it possibly could. And there is speculation that the floating mountains contain unobtainium, which is a room temp superconductor. <br> <br>
The mountains were formed on the land, and "broke off" sailing upwards over the magnetic pole of the planet. They are repelled by the magnetic field underneath them, counteracting gravity. <br> <br>
This is very silly, as minor magnetic perturbations would make the mountains flail about wildly, just as trying to hold a magnet up in the air with another magnet is very difficult.<br> <br>
Also, he doesn't address what properties of unobtainium exist that would likely "save Earth". Why would a rock that was a room temperature superconductor save Earth? You couldn't build nuclear power plants from it. Perhaps it has properties that make it 1000x more powerful than uranium? None of this gets addressed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen the film , in IMAX 3D ( gave me a two day headache ) - and I guess I missed the giant stone arches near the end of the film .
But , somebody who worked on the film anonymously emailed the writer of the article to explain some of the problems they saw .
Namely : the gas giant rotating faster than it possibly could .
And there is speculation that the floating mountains contain unobtainium , which is a room temp superconductor .
The mountains were formed on the land , and " broke off " sailing upwards over the magnetic pole of the planet .
They are repelled by the magnetic field underneath them , counteracting gravity .
This is very silly , as minor magnetic perturbations would make the mountains flail about wildly , just as trying to hold a magnet up in the air with another magnet is very difficult .
Also , he does n't address what properties of unobtainium exist that would likely " save Earth " .
Why would a rock that was a room temperature superconductor save Earth ?
You could n't build nuclear power plants from it .
Perhaps it has properties that make it 1000x more powerful than uranium ?
None of this gets addressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen the film, in IMAX 3D (gave me a two day headache) - and I guess I missed the giant stone arches near the end of the film.
But, somebody who worked on the film anonymously emailed the writer of the article to explain some of the problems they saw.
Namely: the gas giant rotating faster than it possibly could.
And there is speculation that the floating mountains contain unobtainium, which is a room temp superconductor.
The mountains were formed on the land, and "broke off" sailing upwards over the magnetic pole of the planet.
They are repelled by the magnetic field underneath them, counteracting gravity.
This is very silly, as minor magnetic perturbations would make the mountains flail about wildly, just as trying to hold a magnet up in the air with another magnet is very difficult.
Also, he doesn't address what properties of unobtainium exist that would likely "save Earth".
Why would a rock that was a room temperature superconductor save Earth?
You couldn't build nuclear power plants from it.
Perhaps it has properties that make it 1000x more powerful than uranium?
None of this gets addressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545064</id>
	<title>Educational... :)</title>
	<author>mbarbosa</author>
	<datestamp>1261677840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from all the "Dances with Jurassic Alien Giant Smurfs" comments...<br>I do believe this movie could be inspirational (somewhat) to some future<br>slashdotters... whatever all the people complaning says... I think it is<br>a beatiful example of what can be achieved pushing current state<br>of the art technology...</p><p>Nevermind it might be an overblown cartoon or whatever... but being<br>a fan of sci-fi I do think the cool-factor and wow-factor for a kids that<br>watch this card is going to nudge just a few select few into computers<br>or tech-related paths some time in their future just as many of us<br>older ones were nudged if ever so slightly towards cool tech stuff<br>by all the start trek and whatnot stuff on tv back in the days<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>So, I grant it might not have the best plot in the world... but I<br>bow my head to it because of the cool factor and how it might<br>inspire lots of kids to say "wow, they did that with computers?<br>I want to do that"... then again, once they bump head on with<br>all the math requirements and get discouraged once they<br>realize the big bucks are in being a boss and doing business<br>management or whatever they might ditch the idea... but still...<br>if you can make a few kids dream of the future... a good future...<br>it is worth it I say...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from all the " Dances with Jurassic Alien Giant Smurfs " comments...I do believe this movie could be inspirational ( somewhat ) to some futureslashdotters... whatever all the people complaning says... I think it isa beatiful example of what can be achieved pushing current stateof the art technology...Nevermind it might be an overblown cartoon or whatever... but beinga fan of sci-fi I do think the cool-factor and wow-factor for a kids thatwatch this card is going to nudge just a few select few into computersor tech-related paths some time in their future just as many of usolder ones were nudged if ever so slightly towards cool tech stuffby all the start trek and whatnot stuff on tv back in the days : ) So , I grant it might not have the best plot in the world... but Ibow my head to it because of the cool factor and how it mightinspire lots of kids to say " wow , they did that with computers ? I want to do that " ... then again , once they bump head on withall the math requirements and get discouraged once theyrealize the big bucks are in being a boss and doing businessmanagement or whatever they might ditch the idea... but still...if you can make a few kids dream of the future... a good future...it is worth it I say.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from all the "Dances with Jurassic Alien Giant Smurfs" comments...I do believe this movie could be inspirational (somewhat) to some futureslashdotters... whatever all the people complaning says... I think it isa beatiful example of what can be achieved pushing current stateof the art technology...Nevermind it might be an overblown cartoon or whatever... but beinga fan of sci-fi I do think the cool-factor and wow-factor for a kids thatwatch this card is going to nudge just a few select few into computersor tech-related paths some time in their future just as many of usolder ones were nudged if ever so slightly towards cool tech stuffby all the start trek and whatnot stuff on tv back in the days :)So, I grant it might not have the best plot in the world... but Ibow my head to it because of the cool factor and how it mightinspire lots of kids to say "wow, they did that with computers?I want to do that"... then again, once they bump head on withall the math requirements and get discouraged once theyrealize the big bucks are in being a boss and doing businessmanagement or whatever they might ditch the idea... but still...if you can make a few kids dream of the future... a good future...it is worth it I say...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544302</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is full of flaws itself</title>
	<author>seven of five</author>
	<datestamp>1261673100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, dude, not unobtainium. <a href="http://www.tv.com/the-bullwinkle-show/upsidasium-21-andamp-22/episode/186118/summary.html" title="tv.com">upsidaisium</a> [tv.com] <br> <br>Unobtainium doesn't have unpaired electrons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , dude , not unobtainium .
upsidaisium [ tv.com ] Unobtainium does n't have unpaired electrons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, dude, not unobtainium.
upsidaisium [tv.com]  Unobtainium doesn't have unpaired electrons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544062</id>
	<title>Re:Ava-who?</title>
	<author>TiberiusMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261671600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The plot isn't bad, it's just nothing new.  When taken as a whole, the movie is wonderful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plot is n't bad , it 's just nothing new .
When taken as a whole , the movie is wonderful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plot isn't bad, it's just nothing new.
When taken as a whole, the movie is wonderful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30564192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30553446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30621134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30549186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30640790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30551738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30602662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30551750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30556314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30552164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30549464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30620166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30561392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1334212_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30620166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30552164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30621134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544490
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30551750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30549464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30556314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30551738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546698
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30602662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30561392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30564192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30548616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544786
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544682
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30553446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30546194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30547004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30549186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30544926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30640790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30543860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1334212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1334212.30545658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
