<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_26_0328244</id>
	<title>50 Years of Domesticating Foxes For Science</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261833420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gamebittk writes <i>"In 1959, Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev set out to <a href="http://www.overpill.com/2009/12/21/soviet-scientist-turns-foxes-into-puppies/">breed a tamer fox</a> that would be easier for their handlers in the Russian fur industry to work with. Much to the scientist's shock, changes no one had expected emerged after just 10 generations. The foxes began behaving playfully, were smaller in size, and even changed color &mdash; much like dogs."</i>
Belyaev died in 1985, but <a href="http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510\%20Spring\%2009/Behavior\%20Genetics/Farm-Fox\%20Experiment.pdf">the experiment continued</a> (PDF) in his absence, and to this day provides strong evidence to parts of evolutionary theory. The experiment eventually <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/25rats.html">branched out to involve other species</a> as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>gamebittk writes " In 1959 , Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev set out to breed a tamer fox that would be easier for their handlers in the Russian fur industry to work with .
Much to the scientist 's shock , changes no one had expected emerged after just 10 generations .
The foxes began behaving playfully , were smaller in size , and even changed color    much like dogs .
" Belyaev died in 1985 , but the experiment continued ( PDF ) in his absence , and to this day provides strong evidence to parts of evolutionary theory .
The experiment eventually branched out to involve other species as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gamebittk writes "In 1959, Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev set out to breed a tamer fox that would be easier for their handlers in the Russian fur industry to work with.
Much to the scientist's shock, changes no one had expected emerged after just 10 generations.
The foxes began behaving playfully, were smaller in size, and even changed color — much like dogs.
"
Belyaev died in 1985, but the experiment continued (PDF) in his absence, and to this day provides strong evidence to parts of evolutionary theory.
The experiment eventually branched out to involve other species as well.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557284</id>
	<title>Re:cool new pets!</title>
	<author>Inox555</author>
	<datestamp>1261856520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check out Fennec Foxes...
<p>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=com.ubuntu\%3Aen-US\%3Aofficial&amp;hs=Rcw&amp;num=100&amp;q=fennec+fox&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=com.ubuntu\%3Aen-US\%3Aofficial&amp;hs=Rcw&amp;num=100&amp;q=fennec+fox&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Fennec Foxes.. . http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;safe = off&amp;client = firefox-a&amp;rls = com.ubuntu \ % 3Aen-US \ % 3Aofficial&amp;hs = Rcw&amp;num = 100&amp;q = fennec + fox&amp;aq = f&amp;oq = &amp;aqi = g10 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Fennec Foxes...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=com.ubuntu\%3Aen-US\%3Aofficial&amp;hs=Rcw&amp;num=100&amp;q=fennec+fox&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10 [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555730</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261842780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this is pretty much nothing. We've been doing this sort of thing for something like 20,000 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is pretty much nothing .
We 've been doing this sort of thing for something like 20,000 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this is pretty much nothing.
We've been doing this sort of thing for something like 20,000 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555584</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1261841280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, well, you started it, didn't you?  Of course, like all master race discussions, yours appears to start with a couple of false assumptions and goes from there.</p><p>"As I read through the article, blue eyes, fair skin and hair were as indicated as behavior."</p><p>No, they weren't.  Even the short article notes that Belyaev selected foxes based on which ones snapped at him when he offered his hand.  Changes in coat colour (similar to those observed in dogs vs. wolves) were noted as a surprising incidental result.  The more recent actual paper also linked mentions that those changes are likely a side effect of general changes in the timing of development, and are similar to mechanisms seen in dogs.</p><p>"And in the articles, it was by selective breeding with these patterns in mind, that these new foxes and rats were created."</p><p>No, it wasn't.</p><p>"I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people."</p><p>All your arguments for this belief are heavily based on what is likely your society of origin, the US, which has and continues to have a very uneven relationship with people who have dark skin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well , you started it , did n't you ?
Of course , like all master race discussions , yours appears to start with a couple of false assumptions and goes from there .
" As I read through the article , blue eyes , fair skin and hair were as indicated as behavior .
" No , they were n't .
Even the short article notes that Belyaev selected foxes based on which ones snapped at him when he offered his hand .
Changes in coat colour ( similar to those observed in dogs vs. wolves ) were noted as a surprising incidental result .
The more recent actual paper also linked mentions that those changes are likely a side effect of general changes in the timing of development , and are similar to mechanisms seen in dogs .
" And in the articles , it was by selective breeding with these patterns in mind , that these new foxes and rats were created .
" No , it was n't .
" I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism , but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people .
" All your arguments for this belief are heavily based on what is likely your society of origin , the US , which has and continues to have a very uneven relationship with people who have dark skin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well, you started it, didn't you?
Of course, like all master race discussions, yours appears to start with a couple of false assumptions and goes from there.
"As I read through the article, blue eyes, fair skin and hair were as indicated as behavior.
"No, they weren't.
Even the short article notes that Belyaev selected foxes based on which ones snapped at him when he offered his hand.
Changes in coat colour (similar to those observed in dogs vs. wolves) were noted as a surprising incidental result.
The more recent actual paper also linked mentions that those changes are likely a side effect of general changes in the timing of development, and are similar to mechanisms seen in dogs.
"And in the articles, it was by selective breeding with these patterns in mind, that these new foxes and rats were created.
"No, it wasn't.
"I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people.
"All your arguments for this belief are heavily based on what is likely your society of origin, the US, which has and continues to have a very uneven relationship with people who have dark skin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560230</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261841880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...The are issues with evolutionary theory...<br>
&nbsp; Shhh, don't point out that the faith of evolution violates well established laws of nature. On<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. all that will do is get you modded down to the lowest numbers possible. I don't believe in the religion of evolution either, but we are in the minority here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...The are issues with evolutionary theory.. .   Shhh , do n't point out that the faith of evolution violates well established laws of nature .
On / .
all that will do is get you modded down to the lowest numbers possible .
I do n't believe in the religion of evolution either , but we are in the minority here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...The are issues with evolutionary theory...
  Shhh, don't point out that the faith of evolution violates well established laws of nature.
On /.
all that will do is get you modded down to the lowest numbers possible.
I don't believe in the religion of evolution either, but we are in the minority here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30577696</id>
	<title>And for $6,000 you can have one</title>
	<author>modemboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262008320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.sibfox.com/" title="sibfox.com">http://www.sibfox.com/</a> [sibfox.com]</p><p>Someone got $6,000 to loan me? I want one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.sibfox.com/ [ sibfox.com ] Someone got $ 6,000 to loan me ?
I want one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.sibfox.com/ [sibfox.com]Someone got $6,000 to loan me?
I want one...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560010</id>
	<title>Re:Meat sucks, leather sucks</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1261838340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno, that slashdot ID is pretty darn low...</p><p>I don't get the philosophical Vegan.  I mean, it's cool you care about animals that much to go vegan (and frankly, it would creep me out a bit if you cared that much and didn't), but I don't understand caring that much about animals in the first place.  They are animals - their lives when free in the wild are not exactly cozy to begin with.  To me, life in a cage with the sole purpose of eventually being killed and skinned is not particularly worse than the daily life or death struggle for the sole purpose of eventually becoming some other creature's food - and all animals are ALWAYS something else's food eventually.  Add to that the fact that most of the ways animals die in the wild - starvation, disease, getting eaten (old age is not exactly common) are far, far more painful than a slit throat, and I don't see why people get so upset about it.</p><p>With the exception of those who truly believe animals should be free for the sake of being free, you're fooling yourself if you think even the worst players in the food or fur industries are causing significantly greater discomfort to an animal than it would recieve in the wild.  Wild animals, particularly non-predatory animals, live in constant fear and conflict on a minute by minute basis.  This is why wild animals are never friendly - they would die if they were.  If you think animals are happy in the wild, you've never seen animals in the wild.</p><p>It's just an opinion, and I do believe we have a responsibility to not cause more discomfort than necessary for animals in our care even if their intended purpose is ultimately death - that is simply a dignity thing, and reflects what kind of character a person has.</p><p>And yes, I love my cat, which I rescued from the pound, and I treat him very well, and I would be very sad if he died.  I don't really care about your cat, though, except as a reflection of you - i.e. I care if you're a piece of shit who beats animals, or if you are sad because your favorite pet died.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , that slashdot ID is pretty darn low...I do n't get the philosophical Vegan .
I mean , it 's cool you care about animals that much to go vegan ( and frankly , it would creep me out a bit if you cared that much and did n't ) , but I do n't understand caring that much about animals in the first place .
They are animals - their lives when free in the wild are not exactly cozy to begin with .
To me , life in a cage with the sole purpose of eventually being killed and skinned is not particularly worse than the daily life or death struggle for the sole purpose of eventually becoming some other creature 's food - and all animals are ALWAYS something else 's food eventually .
Add to that the fact that most of the ways animals die in the wild - starvation , disease , getting eaten ( old age is not exactly common ) are far , far more painful than a slit throat , and I do n't see why people get so upset about it.With the exception of those who truly believe animals should be free for the sake of being free , you 're fooling yourself if you think even the worst players in the food or fur industries are causing significantly greater discomfort to an animal than it would recieve in the wild .
Wild animals , particularly non-predatory animals , live in constant fear and conflict on a minute by minute basis .
This is why wild animals are never friendly - they would die if they were .
If you think animals are happy in the wild , you 've never seen animals in the wild.It 's just an opinion , and I do believe we have a responsibility to not cause more discomfort than necessary for animals in our care even if their intended purpose is ultimately death - that is simply a dignity thing , and reflects what kind of character a person has.And yes , I love my cat , which I rescued from the pound , and I treat him very well , and I would be very sad if he died .
I do n't really care about your cat , though , except as a reflection of you - i.e .
I care if you 're a piece of shit who beats animals , or if you are sad because your favorite pet died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, that slashdot ID is pretty darn low...I don't get the philosophical Vegan.
I mean, it's cool you care about animals that much to go vegan (and frankly, it would creep me out a bit if you cared that much and didn't), but I don't understand caring that much about animals in the first place.
They are animals - their lives when free in the wild are not exactly cozy to begin with.
To me, life in a cage with the sole purpose of eventually being killed and skinned is not particularly worse than the daily life or death struggle for the sole purpose of eventually becoming some other creature's food - and all animals are ALWAYS something else's food eventually.
Add to that the fact that most of the ways animals die in the wild - starvation, disease, getting eaten (old age is not exactly common) are far, far more painful than a slit throat, and I don't see why people get so upset about it.With the exception of those who truly believe animals should be free for the sake of being free, you're fooling yourself if you think even the worst players in the food or fur industries are causing significantly greater discomfort to an animal than it would recieve in the wild.
Wild animals, particularly non-predatory animals, live in constant fear and conflict on a minute by minute basis.
This is why wild animals are never friendly - they would die if they were.
If you think animals are happy in the wild, you've never seen animals in the wild.It's just an opinion, and I do believe we have a responsibility to not cause more discomfort than necessary for animals in our care even if their intended purpose is ultimately death - that is simply a dignity thing, and reflects what kind of character a person has.And yes, I love my cat, which I rescued from the pound, and I treat him very well, and I would be very sad if he died.
I don't really care about your cat, though, except as a reflection of you - i.e.
I care if you're a piece of shit who beats animals, or if you are sad because your favorite pet died.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556232</id>
	<title>Foxxxy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261847280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555956</id>
	<title>Human Breeding of Humans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261844940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall a Stanford talk back in the mid 90s in which Dawkins asserted in no uncertain terms that there has never been any significant impact on human evolution by human breeding of humans.</p><p>Seems a little <i>religious</i>, of him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall a Stanford talk back in the mid 90s in which Dawkins asserted in no uncertain terms that there has never been any significant impact on human evolution by human breeding of humans.Seems a little religious , of him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall a Stanford talk back in the mid 90s in which Dawkins asserted in no uncertain terms that there has never been any significant impact on human evolution by human breeding of humans.Seems a little religious, of him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555532</id>
	<title>Two headed foxes</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1261839840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How soon was it before they decided to graft another head on the foxes? I hear Russian scientists were all into that sort of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How soon was it before they decided to graft another head on the foxes ?
I hear Russian scientists were all into that sort of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How soon was it before they decided to graft another head on the foxes?
I hear Russian scientists were all into that sort of thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557380</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1261857180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but if someone is going to complain about us "playing God", they probably have a religious mindset so they have even less reason to complain. After all, didn't God give Adam dominion over the animals of the world after Adam named them all? So if you believe the myth, we're just doing God's work for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but if someone is going to complain about us " playing God " , they probably have a religious mindset so they have even less reason to complain .
After all , did n't God give Adam dominion over the animals of the world after Adam named them all ?
So if you believe the myth , we 're just doing God 's work for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but if someone is going to complain about us "playing God", they probably have a religious mindset so they have even less reason to complain.
After all, didn't God give Adam dominion over the animals of the world after Adam named them all?
So if you believe the myth, we're just doing God's work for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557644</id>
	<title>Re:Hippies suck</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1261859520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous Coward;</p><p>Do you what a "hippy" is.  I bet you, like most people do not.   You probably define "hippy" as anyone who isn't a mindless consumer or someone who has long unkempt hair ( making many people on slash dot "hippies" ).</p><p>My hair is probably shorter than yours.  I wear up to date clothing.  Work a normal job and socialize with normal people.</p><p>I just don't see the point in inflicting pain on and killing animals that have a rich inner life similar to my pets.</p><p>If that makes me a hippy,  feel free to be an ignoramus and label me at will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous Coward ; Do you what a " hippy " is .
I bet you , like most people do not .
You probably define " hippy " as anyone who is n't a mindless consumer or someone who has long unkempt hair ( making many people on slash dot " hippies " ) .My hair is probably shorter than yours .
I wear up to date clothing .
Work a normal job and socialize with normal people.I just do n't see the point in inflicting pain on and killing animals that have a rich inner life similar to my pets.If that makes me a hippy , feel free to be an ignoramus and label me at will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous Coward;Do you what a "hippy" is.
I bet you, like most people do not.
You probably define "hippy" as anyone who isn't a mindless consumer or someone who has long unkempt hair ( making many people on slash dot "hippies" ).My hair is probably shorter than yours.
I wear up to date clothing.
Work a normal job and socialize with normal people.I just don't see the point in inflicting pain on and killing animals that have a rich inner life similar to my pets.If that makes me a hippy,  feel free to be an ignoramus and label me at will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261843200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale, say full on global thermo nuclear war. just having them has done great things for mankind. before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war. after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did. for the most part they stay pretty local and don't escalate into the blood baths of old. i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90's and even those didn't hit pre WWII numbers.</p><p>look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started. granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush, but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad. major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours.  the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes.  however, look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities. that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.</p><p>i for one love nukes and the fruits of our scientists efforts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale , say full on global thermo nuclear war .
just having them has done great things for mankind .
before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war .
after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did .
for the most part they stay pretty local and do n't escalate into the blood baths of old .
i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90 's and even those did n't hit pre WWII numbers.look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started .
granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush , but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad .
major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours .
the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes .
however , look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities .
that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.i for one love nukes and the fruits of our scientists efforts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale, say full on global thermo nuclear war.
just having them has done great things for mankind.
before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war.
after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did.
for the most part they stay pretty local and don't escalate into the blood baths of old.
i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90's and even those didn't hit pre WWII numbers.look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started.
granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush, but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad.
major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours.
the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes.
however, look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities.
that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.i for one love nukes and the fruits of our scientists efforts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555388</id>
	<title>I propose the name ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261837560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Intelligent Evolutionary Design"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Intelligent Evolutionary Design "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Intelligent Evolutionary Design"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</id>
	<title>History</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1261837020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soviets actually had long history in experimenting modifying genes and DNA of animals, and in late years this was even minorly expanded to humans. They were really cautious about that, but did experience on things like changing human behavior in brains and trying to give them 'better' abilities (as in from military point of view). Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies. The most interesting part is that via some limited lobotomy, they managed to remove some feeling of fear and feelings from the subjects. There's a few <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrJ8ewj\_KYw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">videos</a> [youtube.com] out of those experiences, this one is taken near Black Sea in 1986 in area whats currently Ukraine.</p><p>Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god. Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soviets actually had long history in experimenting modifying genes and DNA of animals , and in late years this was even minorly expanded to humans .
They were really cautious about that , but did experience on things like changing human behavior in brains and trying to give them 'better ' abilities ( as in from military point of view ) .
Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy , while learning military tactics and strategies .
The most interesting part is that via some limited lobotomy , they managed to remove some feeling of fear and feelings from the subjects .
There 's a few videos [ youtube.com ] out of those experiences , this one is taken near Black Sea in 1986 in area whats currently Ukraine.Never the less , it 's always scary when humans play god .
Something is going to happen eventually , so should be really careful about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soviets actually had long history in experimenting modifying genes and DNA of animals, and in late years this was even minorly expanded to humans.
They were really cautious about that, but did experience on things like changing human behavior in brains and trying to give them 'better' abilities (as in from military point of view).
Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies.
The most interesting part is that via some limited lobotomy, they managed to remove some feeling of fear and feelings from the subjects.
There's a few videos [youtube.com] out of those experiences, this one is taken near Black Sea in 1986 in area whats currently Ukraine.Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god.
Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558356</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1261822020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Secondly, the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2. You want to compare civilian deaths? The numbers at IraqBodyCount.org are quite suspect, but let's say there were 500,000 civilian deaths just for argument's sake. There were over 100,000,000 civilian deaths in WW2 and almost 3,000,000 deaths in Korea. The numbers in Iraq just don't compare to previous wars.</p></div><p>The Iraq 'war' is confined to a single nation, it hardly even leaks into the region as a whole.</p><p>The second world war had 100M civilian deaths over the whole Earth.</p><p>If you take the 'suspect' 500K civilian deaths in Iraq and scale that up to a world war it might come out pretty harsh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Secondly , the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2 .
You want to compare civilian deaths ?
The numbers at IraqBodyCount.org are quite suspect , but let 's say there were 500,000 civilian deaths just for argument 's sake .
There were over 100,000,000 civilian deaths in WW2 and almost 3,000,000 deaths in Korea .
The numbers in Iraq just do n't compare to previous wars.The Iraq 'war ' is confined to a single nation , it hardly even leaks into the region as a whole.The second world war had 100M civilian deaths over the whole Earth.If you take the 'suspect ' 500K civilian deaths in Iraq and scale that up to a world war it might come out pretty harsh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secondly, the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2.
You want to compare civilian deaths?
The numbers at IraqBodyCount.org are quite suspect, but let's say there were 500,000 civilian deaths just for argument's sake.
There were over 100,000,000 civilian deaths in WW2 and almost 3,000,000 deaths in Korea.
The numbers in Iraq just don't compare to previous wars.The Iraq 'war' is confined to a single nation, it hardly even leaks into the region as a whole.The second world war had 100M civilian deaths over the whole Earth.If you take the 'suspect' 500K civilian deaths in Iraq and scale that up to a world war it might come out pretty harsh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563578</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic Chimps</title>
	<author>kiddygrinder</author>
	<datestamp>1261934340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah, i want a monkey butler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , i want a monkey butler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, i want a monkey butler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30583354</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>bingoUV</author>
	<datestamp>1262109660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a guy in cold temperature, surviving nights is more difficult. If he can survive night, he can surely survive the day (at least as far as body heat retention goes).</p><p>At night, there is not much radiation to absorb and heat oneself. But body is at a non-zero kelvin temperature (quite a bit above it, in fact around 310 kelvin). So, like any object, it radiates its heat as electromagnetic radiation (proportional to sigma*(T**4)). White objects radiate less than black objects. So fair skinned people find it easier to maintain body heat during cold nights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a guy in cold temperature , surviving nights is more difficult .
If he can survive night , he can surely survive the day ( at least as far as body heat retention goes ) .At night , there is not much radiation to absorb and heat oneself .
But body is at a non-zero kelvin temperature ( quite a bit above it , in fact around 310 kelvin ) .
So , like any object , it radiates its heat as electromagnetic radiation ( proportional to sigma * ( T * * 4 ) ) .
White objects radiate less than black objects .
So fair skinned people find it easier to maintain body heat during cold nights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a guy in cold temperature, surviving nights is more difficult.
If he can survive night, he can surely survive the day (at least as far as body heat retention goes).At night, there is not much radiation to absorb and heat oneself.
But body is at a non-zero kelvin temperature (quite a bit above it, in fact around 310 kelvin).
So, like any object, it radiates its heat as electromagnetic radiation (proportional to sigma*(T**4)).
White objects radiate less than black objects.
So fair skinned people find it easier to maintain body heat during cold nights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558714</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>ancient\_kings</author>
	<datestamp>1261824720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I never played "God", I onced played with "God" and let me tell you, it was the first and last time I would do that as that mother-fucker cheats....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I never played " God " , I onced played with " God " and let me tell you , it was the first and last time I would do that as that mother-fucker cheats... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I never played "God", I onced played with "God" and let me tell you, it was the first and last time I would do that as that mother-fucker cheats....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556536</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1261849920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody needs meat either. At least fur harvesting could be made less distasteful by giving the animals morphine</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody needs meat either .
At least fur harvesting could be made less distasteful by giving the animals morphine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody needs meat either.
At least fur harvesting could be made less distasteful by giving the animals morphine</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555484</id>
	<title>nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261839120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just look at how we humans are being domesticated. over the last couple of hundred years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at how we humans are being domesticated .
over the last couple of hundred years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at how we humans are being domesticated.
over the last couple of hundred years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558870</id>
	<title>Call it whatever you want,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261825980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ben Stein.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ben Stein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ben Stein.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555916</id>
	<title>Cold War Dog Fight Joke</title>
	<author>LoverOfJoy</author>
	<datestamp>1261844400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of the Cold War Dog Fight joke:

The Americans and Russians at the height of the arms race realized that if they continued in the usual manner they were going to blow up the whole world. One day they sat down and decided to settle the whole dispute with one dog fight. They'd have five years to breed the best fighting dog in the world and which ever side's dog won would be entitled to dominate the world. The losing side would have to lay down its arms. The Russians found the biggest meanest Doberman and Rottweiler dogs in the world and bred them with the biggest meanest Siberian wolves. They selected only the biggest and strongest puppy from each litter, killed his siblings, and gave him all the milk. They used steroids and trainers and after five years came up with the biggest meanest dog the world had ever seen. Its cage needed steel bars that were five inches thick and nobody could get near it. When the day came for the dog fight, the Americans showed up with a strange animal. It was a nine foot long Dachshund. Everyone felt sorry for the Americans because they knew there was no way that this dog could possibly last ten seconds with the Russian dog.
<br> <br>
When the cages were opened up, the Dachshund came out of it's cage and slowly waddled over towards the Russian dog. The Russian dog snarled and leaped out of it's cage and charged the American dachshund. But, when it got close enough to bite the Dachshund's neck, the Dachshund opened it's mouth and consumed the Russian dog in one bite. There was nothing left at all of the Russian dog.
<br> <br>
The Russians came up to the Americans shaking their heads in disbelief. 'We don't understand how this could have happened. We had our best people working for five years with the meanest Doberman and Rottweiler in the world and the biggest meanest Siberian wolves." That's nothing", an American replied."We had our best plastic surgeons working for five years to make an alligator look like a Dachshund."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the Cold War Dog Fight joke : The Americans and Russians at the height of the arms race realized that if they continued in the usual manner they were going to blow up the whole world .
One day they sat down and decided to settle the whole dispute with one dog fight .
They 'd have five years to breed the best fighting dog in the world and which ever side 's dog won would be entitled to dominate the world .
The losing side would have to lay down its arms .
The Russians found the biggest meanest Doberman and Rottweiler dogs in the world and bred them with the biggest meanest Siberian wolves .
They selected only the biggest and strongest puppy from each litter , killed his siblings , and gave him all the milk .
They used steroids and trainers and after five years came up with the biggest meanest dog the world had ever seen .
Its cage needed steel bars that were five inches thick and nobody could get near it .
When the day came for the dog fight , the Americans showed up with a strange animal .
It was a nine foot long Dachshund .
Everyone felt sorry for the Americans because they knew there was no way that this dog could possibly last ten seconds with the Russian dog .
When the cages were opened up , the Dachshund came out of it 's cage and slowly waddled over towards the Russian dog .
The Russian dog snarled and leaped out of it 's cage and charged the American dachshund .
But , when it got close enough to bite the Dachshund 's neck , the Dachshund opened it 's mouth and consumed the Russian dog in one bite .
There was nothing left at all of the Russian dog .
The Russians came up to the Americans shaking their heads in disbelief .
'We do n't understand how this could have happened .
We had our best people working for five years with the meanest Doberman and Rottweiler in the world and the biggest meanest Siberian wolves .
" That 's nothing " , an American replied .
" We had our best plastic surgeons working for five years to make an alligator look like a Dachshund .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the Cold War Dog Fight joke:

The Americans and Russians at the height of the arms race realized that if they continued in the usual manner they were going to blow up the whole world.
One day they sat down and decided to settle the whole dispute with one dog fight.
They'd have five years to breed the best fighting dog in the world and which ever side's dog won would be entitled to dominate the world.
The losing side would have to lay down its arms.
The Russians found the biggest meanest Doberman and Rottweiler dogs in the world and bred them with the biggest meanest Siberian wolves.
They selected only the biggest and strongest puppy from each litter, killed his siblings, and gave him all the milk.
They used steroids and trainers and after five years came up with the biggest meanest dog the world had ever seen.
Its cage needed steel bars that were five inches thick and nobody could get near it.
When the day came for the dog fight, the Americans showed up with a strange animal.
It was a nine foot long Dachshund.
Everyone felt sorry for the Americans because they knew there was no way that this dog could possibly last ten seconds with the Russian dog.
When the cages were opened up, the Dachshund came out of it's cage and slowly waddled over towards the Russian dog.
The Russian dog snarled and leaped out of it's cage and charged the American dachshund.
But, when it got close enough to bite the Dachshund's neck, the Dachshund opened it's mouth and consumed the Russian dog in one bite.
There was nothing left at all of the Russian dog.
The Russians came up to the Americans shaking their heads in disbelief.
'We don't understand how this could have happened.
We had our best people working for five years with the meanest Doberman and Rottweiler in the world and the biggest meanest Siberian wolves.
" That's nothing", an American replied.
"We had our best plastic surgeons working for five years to make an alligator look like a Dachshund.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559708</id>
	<title>Nature v/s Nurture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261834260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am really surprised that no-one has picked up on the nature v/s nurture angle to this story.</p><p>let's look at it..  Some foxes are "naturally" agressive (read: NATURE).<br>By taking the foxes that were curious and more passive and pairing them, their offspring were less aggressive (read: NATURE).</p><p>I grew up in a family of three children.  My siblings were adopted - although I didn't know for quite a few years.  Not only did I look like my parents, but my behaviour was/is like my parents.  Regardless, I have always had a very strong bond with one of my siblings - my other sibling is just plain unpleasant (as strongly agreed by the rest of the family).</p><p>When my sister was 25, she heard from her biological mother for the first time (read: through a private detective).  I took my sister to met her biological mother for the first time - it was like looking at a clone.  They had never seen each other, not even photos.  They dressed the same, same hair-styles, social past-times, smokers, music tastes, mannerisms - it was uncanny, particularly given that my sister was the only one in the family who had these interests!!  I can assure you that the similarities ran alot deeper than "appearances" - their personalities were VERY similar, as were their interests.  Again, I believe NATURE.</p><p>Note: If you happen to be a social worker for children... ask yourself: nature v/s nurture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... particularly before you cast aspersions about bad parents - particularly when there are adopted children in the equation.  From experience, I can say that some callous social workers nearly destroyed my parents emotionally.  These "so called experts" never justified why only one of the three of us was constantly in trouble with the law - and the other two of us were NEVER in trouble with the law.  again, I believe NATURE.</p><p>I could discuss this topic in a lot of detail (biologically related siblings who differ, effect of nurture in extreme conditions, etc).  However, I'll spare you the details<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)   In summary, I am a strong believer that the clear majority of a person's behaviour is a result of their genetics (NATURE) rather than NURTURE if the environment is benign.  The story of these foxes re-inforces my long-held belief.</p><p>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am really surprised that no-one has picked up on the nature v/s nurture angle to this story.let 's look at it.. Some foxes are " naturally " agressive ( read : NATURE ) .By taking the foxes that were curious and more passive and pairing them , their offspring were less aggressive ( read : NATURE ) .I grew up in a family of three children .
My siblings were adopted - although I did n't know for quite a few years .
Not only did I look like my parents , but my behaviour was/is like my parents .
Regardless , I have always had a very strong bond with one of my siblings - my other sibling is just plain unpleasant ( as strongly agreed by the rest of the family ) .When my sister was 25 , she heard from her biological mother for the first time ( read : through a private detective ) .
I took my sister to met her biological mother for the first time - it was like looking at a clone .
They had never seen each other , not even photos .
They dressed the same , same hair-styles , social past-times , smokers , music tastes , mannerisms - it was uncanny , particularly given that my sister was the only one in the family who had these interests ! !
I can assure you that the similarities ran alot deeper than " appearances " - their personalities were VERY similar , as were their interests .
Again , I believe NATURE.Note : If you happen to be a social worker for children... ask yourself : nature v/s nurture ... particularly before you cast aspersions about bad parents - particularly when there are adopted children in the equation .
From experience , I can say that some callous social workers nearly destroyed my parents emotionally .
These " so called experts " never justified why only one of the three of us was constantly in trouble with the law - and the other two of us were NEVER in trouble with the law .
again , I believe NATURE.I could discuss this topic in a lot of detail ( biologically related siblings who differ , effect of nurture in extreme conditions , etc ) .
However , I 'll spare you the details : ) In summary , I am a strong believer that the clear majority of a person 's behaviour is a result of their genetics ( NATURE ) rather than NURTURE if the environment is benign .
The story of these foxes re-inforces my long-held belief.AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am really surprised that no-one has picked up on the nature v/s nurture angle to this story.let's look at it..  Some foxes are "naturally" agressive (read: NATURE).By taking the foxes that were curious and more passive and pairing them, their offspring were less aggressive (read: NATURE).I grew up in a family of three children.
My siblings were adopted - although I didn't know for quite a few years.
Not only did I look like my parents, but my behaviour was/is like my parents.
Regardless, I have always had a very strong bond with one of my siblings - my other sibling is just plain unpleasant (as strongly agreed by the rest of the family).When my sister was 25, she heard from her biological mother for the first time (read: through a private detective).
I took my sister to met her biological mother for the first time - it was like looking at a clone.
They had never seen each other, not even photos.
They dressed the same, same hair-styles, social past-times, smokers, music tastes, mannerisms - it was uncanny, particularly given that my sister was the only one in the family who had these interests!!
I can assure you that the similarities ran alot deeper than "appearances" - their personalities were VERY similar, as were their interests.
Again, I believe NATURE.Note: If you happen to be a social worker for children... ask yourself: nature v/s nurture ... particularly before you cast aspersions about bad parents - particularly when there are adopted children in the equation.
From experience, I can say that some callous social workers nearly destroyed my parents emotionally.
These "so called experts" never justified why only one of the three of us was constantly in trouble with the law - and the other two of us were NEVER in trouble with the law.
again, I believe NATURE.I could discuss this topic in a lot of detail (biologically related siblings who differ, effect of nurture in extreme conditions, etc).
However, I'll spare you the details :)   In summary, I am a strong believer that the clear majority of a person's behaviour is a result of their genetics (NATURE) rather than NURTURE if the environment is benign.
The story of these foxes re-inforces my long-held belief.AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555528</id>
	<title>Still relevant to our understanding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261839840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If nothing else, this is relevant in so far as illustrating how much behavior and physiology can change by the modification of a single simple and seemingly unrelated hereditary trait.</p><p>The long and arduous road of chance modifications to the organisms genome isn't necessary to explain these expressed traits specifically, when these simple modifications can cause entire systems to behave differently. It's whole other way of looking at natural selection.</p><p>It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else , this is relevant in so far as illustrating how much behavior and physiology can change by the modification of a single simple and seemingly unrelated hereditary trait.The long and arduous road of chance modifications to the organisms genome is n't necessary to explain these expressed traits specifically , when these simple modifications can cause entire systems to behave differently .
It 's whole other way of looking at natural selection.It 's not as though we have n't heard Creationists ' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else, this is relevant in so far as illustrating how much behavior and physiology can change by the modification of a single simple and seemingly unrelated hereditary trait.The long and arduous road of chance modifications to the organisms genome isn't necessary to explain these expressed traits specifically, when these simple modifications can cause entire systems to behave differently.
It's whole other way of looking at natural selection.It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557750</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261860420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do not confuse adaption to evolution. The genetic make up for these traits existed in the DNA long before the traits started to show up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not confuse adaption to evolution .
The genetic make up for these traits existed in the DNA long before the traits started to show up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not confuse adaption to evolution.
The genetic make up for these traits existed in the DNA long before the traits started to show up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556238</id>
	<title>Re:Still relevant to our understanding</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1261847340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...</p></div><p>And it makes me laugh every time. What stronger evolutionary pressure could there be than not producing healthy offspring? That's bound to proliferate genes that provide redundancy or abort unviable mutations and provide stability. It's not like every generation must or should be a wild genetic experiment, survial comes first and slight adaptation comes second, mostly climate changes are slow processes too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as though we have n't heard Creationists ' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...And it makes me laugh every time .
What stronger evolutionary pressure could there be than not producing healthy offspring ?
That 's bound to proliferate genes that provide redundancy or abort unviable mutations and provide stability .
It 's not like every generation must or should be a wild genetic experiment , survial comes first and slight adaptation comes second , mostly climate changes are slow processes too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...And it makes me laugh every time.
What stronger evolutionary pressure could there be than not producing healthy offspring?
That's bound to proliferate genes that provide redundancy or abort unviable mutations and provide stability.
It's not like every generation must or should be a wild genetic experiment, survial comes first and slight adaptation comes second, mostly climate changes are slow processes too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556372</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1261848540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong.</p></div><p>Indeed, it's just another tick in the very crowded check box of proven. No need to over hype it.</p><p>Rest of your post: tl;dr</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit , strong.Indeed , it 's just another tick in the very crowded check box of proven .
No need to over hype it.Rest of your post : tl ; dr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong.Indeed, it's just another tick in the very crowded check box of proven.
No need to over hype it.Rest of your post: tl;dr
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30591304</id>
	<title>So, uh...</title>
	<author>sunwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259873940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where can I buy one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where can I buy one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where can I buy one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557318</id>
	<title>Meat sucks, leather sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261856640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go vegan. Till then go away and play with your cultural bias.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go vegan .
Till then go away and play with your cultural bias .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go vegan.
Till then go away and play with your cultural bias.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555616</id>
	<title>Timothy Treadwell knew about foxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261841700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody who has seen Grizzly Man, the film about Timothy Treadwell's tragic life with the Grizzly bears, knows that foxes can be domesticated. He befriended several wild foxes and can be seen in the film stroking one of them while it sits contented on his tent.</p><p>He wasn't so successful with befriending the bears themselves, obviously, but he certainly did well with the foxes.</p><p>I wish someone would fund my research into owning a cat or my cousin's cutting edge investigation into petting a hamster. Only another forty years or so and we might reach a vaguely plausible conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who has seen Grizzly Man , the film about Timothy Treadwell 's tragic life with the Grizzly bears , knows that foxes can be domesticated .
He befriended several wild foxes and can be seen in the film stroking one of them while it sits contented on his tent.He was n't so successful with befriending the bears themselves , obviously , but he certainly did well with the foxes.I wish someone would fund my research into owning a cat or my cousin 's cutting edge investigation into petting a hamster .
Only another forty years or so and we might reach a vaguely plausible conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who has seen Grizzly Man, the film about Timothy Treadwell's tragic life with the Grizzly bears, knows that foxes can be domesticated.
He befriended several wild foxes and can be seen in the film stroking one of them while it sits contented on his tent.He wasn't so successful with befriending the bears themselves, obviously, but he certainly did well with the foxes.I wish someone would fund my research into owning a cat or my cousin's cutting edge investigation into petting a hamster.
Only another forty years or so and we might reach a vaguely plausible conclusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555602</id>
	<title>Re:A Marine's Story</title>
	<author>butlerdi</author>
	<datestamp>1261841580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Septic evangelicals are truly pieces of shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Septic evangelicals are truly pieces of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Septic evangelicals are truly pieces of shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560794</id>
	<title>Domestic Chimps</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1261849800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when does someone start trying this with chimps or monkeys? Are they already doing it? Seems like that could really open some doors, you had chimps who were as easy and (relatively) safe to work with as dogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when does someone start trying this with chimps or monkeys ?
Are they already doing it ?
Seems like that could really open some doors , you had chimps who were as easy and ( relatively ) safe to work with as dogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when does someone start trying this with chimps or monkeys?
Are they already doing it?
Seems like that could really open some doors, you had chimps who were as easy and (relatively) safe to work with as dogs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563388</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>BasilBrush</author>
	<datestamp>1261932000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Whoever said I was a creationist?</p></div></blockquote><p>Sorry, that was unfair to creationists. I notice you have previously argued that the H1N1 virus was created by the healthcare sector and released in order that they could sell the vaccine, and other equally cranky stuff. I suspect that this is actually a simple case of you not keeping up with your medication.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever said I was a creationist ? Sorry , that was unfair to creationists .
I notice you have previously argued that the H1N1 virus was created by the healthcare sector and released in order that they could sell the vaccine , and other equally cranky stuff .
I suspect that this is actually a simple case of you not keeping up with your medication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever said I was a creationist?Sorry, that was unfair to creationists.
I notice you have previously argued that the H1N1 virus was created by the healthcare sector and released in order that they could sell the vaccine, and other equally cranky stuff.
I suspect that this is actually a simple case of you not keeping up with your medication.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557418</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261857480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like fur.  Fur for profit/gain, then I agree with you.  But:</p><p>" and are then killed in very pain full ways. "</p><p>Doesn't have to be the case.  I've always wondered why using dry ice isn't more commonplace.  (Would keep the fur intact too than other methods I've read.)  Even humane societies don't use it all that often.  Very cheap and humane way of putting down an animal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like fur .
Fur for profit/gain , then I agree with you .
But : " and are then killed in very pain full ways .
" Does n't have to be the case .
I 've always wondered why using dry ice is n't more commonplace .
( Would keep the fur intact too than other methods I 've read .
) Even humane societies do n't use it all that often .
Very cheap and humane way of putting down an animal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like fur.
Fur for profit/gain, then I agree with you.
But:" and are then killed in very pain full ways.
"Doesn't have to be the case.
I've always wondered why using dry ice isn't more commonplace.
(Would keep the fur intact too than other methods I've read.
)  Even humane societies don't use it all that often.
Very cheap and humane way of putting down an animal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557056</id>
	<title>The same thing happened to me with a Fox ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261854480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, it was a wild fox, quick and smart.</p><p>After a few years, it became playful, domesticated, slow, stupid, and unstable. I'm on Chrome now.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , it was a wild fox , quick and smart.After a few years , it became playful , domesticated , slow , stupid , and unstable .
I 'm on Chrome now .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, it was a wild fox, quick and smart.After a few years, it became playful, domesticated, slow, stupid, and unstable.
I'm on Chrome now.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30565696</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1261909620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation, particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The laws of thermodynamics have strict mathematical meanings which do not always translate well to and from conversational English. If I were to say that entropy demands that systems go from order to disorder, I would be contradicted by the formation of crystals from an evaporating sugar solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation , particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity , not the other way around .
The laws of thermodynamics have strict mathematical meanings which do not always translate well to and from conversational English .
If I were to say that entropy demands that systems go from order to disorder , I would be contradicted by the formation of crystals from an evaporating sugar solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation, particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around.
The laws of thermodynamics have strict mathematical meanings which do not always translate well to and from conversational English.
If I were to say that entropy demands that systems go from order to disorder, I would be contradicted by the formation of crystals from an evaporating sugar solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555718</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261842600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Human beings are animals.  No matter how smart they think they are, they are still governed by their biology.  This can been observed throughout nature.  Racism is nothing more than a natural biological response to something different....

If humans were truly intelligent, they would have mastered such "feelings" a long time ago but most humans can't see past themselves to make that change.  Most humans, despite what you people think, still live like animals, unable to grasp what being a human means.

I personally hate humans for what they are and represent. Those of us with intelligence stand apart from the human race, unhindered but such trivial shit as trying to justify racism....  humans are a bunch of dumb fucking animals that will never learn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human beings are animals .
No matter how smart they think they are , they are still governed by their biology .
This can been observed throughout nature .
Racism is nothing more than a natural biological response to something different... . If humans were truly intelligent , they would have mastered such " feelings " a long time ago but most humans ca n't see past themselves to make that change .
Most humans , despite what you people think , still live like animals , unable to grasp what being a human means .
I personally hate humans for what they are and represent .
Those of us with intelligence stand apart from the human race , unhindered but such trivial shit as trying to justify racism.... humans are a bunch of dumb fucking animals that will never learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human beings are animals.
No matter how smart they think they are, they are still governed by their biology.
This can been observed throughout nature.
Racism is nothing more than a natural biological response to something different....

If humans were truly intelligent, they would have mastered such "feelings" a long time ago but most humans can't see past themselves to make that change.
Most humans, despite what you people think, still live like animals, unable to grasp what being a human means.
I personally hate humans for what they are and represent.
Those of us with intelligence stand apart from the human race, unhindered but such trivial shit as trying to justify racism....  humans are a bunch of dumb fucking animals that will never learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556496</id>
	<title>Perhaps...</title>
	<author>houbou</author>
	<datestamp>1261849620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...since foxes and dogs are canines, the canine race itself tends to be more docile or easier to tame by humans, that could be an explanation for their playfulness.  Their instincts are very similar.  Face with good treatment, good food, they tend to become more trusting...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...since foxes and dogs are canines , the canine race itself tends to be more docile or easier to tame by humans , that could be an explanation for their playfulness .
Their instincts are very similar .
Face with good treatment , good food , they tend to become more trusting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...since foxes and dogs are canines, the canine race itself tends to be more docile or easier to tame by humans, that could be an explanation for their playfulness.
Their instincts are very similar.
Face with good treatment, good food, they tend to become more trusting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556074</id>
	<title>Re:Lessons for Human Evolution</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1261845840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In this fox experiment, genes determined both behavior and physical appearance.  Intelligence is clearly an element of behavior.  We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution.
</p><p>
Humankind would necessarily undergo the same sort of evolutionary changes.  We can expect differences in behavior among the different races and ethnic groups.  Evolution changed both the color of the skin and the type of behavior.  Intelligence is one form of behavior.
</p><p>
The belief that all races and all ethnic groups have identical intelligence and identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior is simply an assumption -- without proof.</p></div><p>I doubt anybody moderately intelligent would believe that all ethnic groups have "identical intelligence" or "identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior", considering how not even within the same ethnic group you can find "identical intelligence" or "identical levels of etc", due to the substantial influence of things such as culture, education and personal and communal experience. Differences are indeed easily spotted within the same ethnic group in communities not distant from each other (think "Athens vs Sparta"; north vs south differences can easily be spotted in many countries, or across the border, even though you'd find the same ethnic group in both sides).

</p><p>Secondly, the experiments show that selecting particular attitudinal aspects results in a secondary selection of particular aesthetic characteristics, but it says nothing about the converse being true too. In other words: if they selected the animals due to some particular (set of) aesthetic characteristics, would they also get a secondary selection on particular attitudinal aspects?

</p><p>Finally, any form of 'group profiling' serves no actual practical purpose other than stereotyping and fueling discrimination, whose only effect is to render life harder for individuals, giving weight to the stereotyped group characteristics over the actual individual capabilities.

</p><p>Before asking whether there is an actual correlation between ethnicity (which BTW is a rather fuzzy concept) and behavior, I would ask who is interested in knowing, and most importantly<i>why</i> are they interested in knowing.

</p><p>I consider it rather funny, in a grotesque kind of way, that usually these information is sought after by 'supremacists' looking for a scientific proof of their belief that their group is superior to any other group (either in general, or for some specific objectives or positions, such as world domination or aristogracy). And I find it funny because their "purity" crapola is easily overturned by the simple observation that cross-breeds are most of the times healthier, smarter and stronger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this fox experiment , genes determined both behavior and physical appearance .
Intelligence is clearly an element of behavior .
We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution .
Humankind would necessarily undergo the same sort of evolutionary changes .
We can expect differences in behavior among the different races and ethnic groups .
Evolution changed both the color of the skin and the type of behavior .
Intelligence is one form of behavior .
The belief that all races and all ethnic groups have identical intelligence and identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior is simply an assumption -- without proof.I doubt anybody moderately intelligent would believe that all ethnic groups have " identical intelligence " or " identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior " , considering how not even within the same ethnic group you can find " identical intelligence " or " identical levels of etc " , due to the substantial influence of things such as culture , education and personal and communal experience .
Differences are indeed easily spotted within the same ethnic group in communities not distant from each other ( think " Athens vs Sparta " ; north vs south differences can easily be spotted in many countries , or across the border , even though you 'd find the same ethnic group in both sides ) .
Secondly , the experiments show that selecting particular attitudinal aspects results in a secondary selection of particular aesthetic characteristics , but it says nothing about the converse being true too .
In other words : if they selected the animals due to some particular ( set of ) aesthetic characteristics , would they also get a secondary selection on particular attitudinal aspects ?
Finally , any form of 'group profiling ' serves no actual practical purpose other than stereotyping and fueling discrimination , whose only effect is to render life harder for individuals , giving weight to the stereotyped group characteristics over the actual individual capabilities .
Before asking whether there is an actual correlation between ethnicity ( which BTW is a rather fuzzy concept ) and behavior , I would ask who is interested in knowing , and most importantlywhy are they interested in knowing .
I consider it rather funny , in a grotesque kind of way , that usually these information is sought after by 'supremacists ' looking for a scientific proof of their belief that their group is superior to any other group ( either in general , or for some specific objectives or positions , such as world domination or aristogracy ) .
And I find it funny because their " purity " crapola is easily overturned by the simple observation that cross-breeds are most of the times healthier , smarter and stronger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this fox experiment, genes determined both behavior and physical appearance.
Intelligence is clearly an element of behavior.
We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution.
Humankind would necessarily undergo the same sort of evolutionary changes.
We can expect differences in behavior among the different races and ethnic groups.
Evolution changed both the color of the skin and the type of behavior.
Intelligence is one form of behavior.
The belief that all races and all ethnic groups have identical intelligence and identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior is simply an assumption -- without proof.I doubt anybody moderately intelligent would believe that all ethnic groups have "identical intelligence" or "identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior", considering how not even within the same ethnic group you can find "identical intelligence" or "identical levels of etc", due to the substantial influence of things such as culture, education and personal and communal experience.
Differences are indeed easily spotted within the same ethnic group in communities not distant from each other (think "Athens vs Sparta"; north vs south differences can easily be spotted in many countries, or across the border, even though you'd find the same ethnic group in both sides).
Secondly, the experiments show that selecting particular attitudinal aspects results in a secondary selection of particular aesthetic characteristics, but it says nothing about the converse being true too.
In other words: if they selected the animals due to some particular (set of) aesthetic characteristics, would they also get a secondary selection on particular attitudinal aspects?
Finally, any form of 'group profiling' serves no actual practical purpose other than stereotyping and fueling discrimination, whose only effect is to render life harder for individuals, giving weight to the stereotyped group characteristics over the actual individual capabilities.
Before asking whether there is an actual correlation between ethnicity (which BTW is a rather fuzzy concept) and behavior, I would ask who is interested in knowing, and most importantlywhy are they interested in knowing.
I consider it rather funny, in a grotesque kind of way, that usually these information is sought after by 'supremacists' looking for a scientific proof of their belief that their group is superior to any other group (either in general, or for some specific objectives or positions, such as world domination or aristogracy).
And I find it funny because their "purity" crapola is easily overturned by the simple observation that cross-breeds are most of the times healthier, smarter and stronger.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559142</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>dafing</author>
	<datestamp>1261828140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im an "abolitionist vegan", against all use.  You could sum it down to "animals one right, not to be property".  Simply put, I'd say I'm against hurting others, theres no doubt in mainstream scientific knowledge that animals "feel" and have "emotions", most likely "thinking" about themselves and others, and I know that I certainly dont want to hurt an animal if I can help it.  No matter what I do, animals will be hurt, but I always try and cause the least harm that I can.
<br> <br>
A good website about veganism <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/" title="abolitionistapproach.com" rel="nofollow">Abolitinist Approach</a> [abolitionistapproach.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im an " abolitionist vegan " , against all use .
You could sum it down to " animals one right , not to be property " .
Simply put , I 'd say I 'm against hurting others , theres no doubt in mainstream scientific knowledge that animals " feel " and have " emotions " , most likely " thinking " about themselves and others , and I know that I certainly dont want to hurt an animal if I can help it .
No matter what I do , animals will be hurt , but I always try and cause the least harm that I can .
A good website about veganism Abolitinist Approach [ abolitionistapproach.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im an "abolitionist vegan", against all use.
You could sum it down to "animals one right, not to be property".
Simply put, I'd say I'm against hurting others, theres no doubt in mainstream scientific knowledge that animals "feel" and have "emotions", most likely "thinking" about themselves and others, and I know that I certainly dont want to hurt an animal if I can help it.
No matter what I do, animals will be hurt, but I always try and cause the least harm that I can.
A good website about veganism Abolitinist Approach [abolitionistapproach.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564618</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1261944360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dictionary definition of fur includes not only pelts, but just the hair itself. Raising sheep and similar animals for wool doesn't involve caging and killing healthy animals. And in some contexts, some people do need this fur: for cold-weather wear, wool is superior to cotton and many synthetics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dictionary definition of fur includes not only pelts , but just the hair itself .
Raising sheep and similar animals for wool does n't involve caging and killing healthy animals .
And in some contexts , some people do need this fur : for cold-weather wear , wool is superior to cotton and many synthetics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dictionary definition of fur includes not only pelts, but just the hair itself.
Raising sheep and similar animals for wool doesn't involve caging and killing healthy animals.
And in some contexts, some people do need this fur: for cold-weather wear, wool is superior to cotton and many synthetics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558048</id>
	<title>body count</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1261819500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is a great deal more died than the documented level. its over 1 million.  I've heard doctors from Iraq say that they  don't see all that many people in hospitals; they can only guess as to how many never get into "the system" which doesn't do a whole lot to document them.</p><p>In Vietnam, the US wanted high body counts and it backfired. This time they wanted low and inexact counts so they didn't want to keep track and it has worked out much better.</p><p>As far as the invading side:</p><p>About half the group is "contractors" (mercenaries) and there is a large number of actual contractors as well.</p><p>The military counts goofy to lower their official death count as well. They can save people better, faster, and much much easier in this war (not being a jungle helps a ton) but that doesn't mean they don't die LATER when it doesn't count in the official tally (or they off themselves as a direct result of their experiences - and what if they flip out and kill other people?) We don't get good official numbers for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is a great deal more died than the documented level .
its over 1 million .
I 've heard doctors from Iraq say that they do n't see all that many people in hospitals ; they can only guess as to how many never get into " the system " which does n't do a whole lot to document them.In Vietnam , the US wanted high body counts and it backfired .
This time they wanted low and inexact counts so they did n't want to keep track and it has worked out much better.As far as the invading side : About half the group is " contractors " ( mercenaries ) and there is a large number of actual contractors as well.The military counts goofy to lower their official death count as well .
They can save people better , faster , and much much easier in this war ( not being a jungle helps a ton ) but that does n't mean they do n't die LATER when it does n't count in the official tally ( or they off themselves as a direct result of their experiences - and what if they flip out and kill other people ?
) We do n't get good official numbers for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is a great deal more died than the documented level.
its over 1 million.
I've heard doctors from Iraq say that they  don't see all that many people in hospitals; they can only guess as to how many never get into "the system" which doesn't do a whole lot to document them.In Vietnam, the US wanted high body counts and it backfired.
This time they wanted low and inexact counts so they didn't want to keep track and it has worked out much better.As far as the invading side:About half the group is "contractors" (mercenaries) and there is a large number of actual contractors as well.The military counts goofy to lower their official death count as well.
They can save people better, faster, and much much easier in this war (not being a jungle helps a ton) but that doesn't mean they don't die LATER when it doesn't count in the official tally (or they off themselves as a direct result of their experiences - and what if they flip out and kill other people?
) We don't get good official numbers for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559030</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1261827240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Documented body count of civilians [iraqbodycount.org]: Around a hundred thousand.</p></div><p>Why is that a problem? I mean, the world is overpopulated, right? This is just cutting down on the excess.</p><p>And, unless we're not presuming the existence of a moral deity, the death of a human is fairly inconsequential. It's all about saving the planet (for future generations and the preservation of biodiversity/species), right?</p><p>Killing people outright just gets it done more quickly than the economic and environmental sanctions and laws we want to resort to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Documented body count of civilians [ iraqbodycount.org ] : Around a hundred thousand.Why is that a problem ?
I mean , the world is overpopulated , right ?
This is just cutting down on the excess.And , unless we 're not presuming the existence of a moral deity , the death of a human is fairly inconsequential .
It 's all about saving the planet ( for future generations and the preservation of biodiversity/species ) , right ? Killing people outright just gets it done more quickly than the economic and environmental sanctions and laws we want to resort to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Documented body count of civilians [iraqbodycount.org]: Around a hundred thousand.Why is that a problem?
I mean, the world is overpopulated, right?
This is just cutting down on the excess.And, unless we're not presuming the existence of a moral deity, the death of a human is fairly inconsequential.
It's all about saving the planet (for future generations and the preservation of biodiversity/species), right?Killing people outright just gets it done more quickly than the economic and environmental sanctions and laws we want to resort to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557596</id>
	<title>Re:cool new pets!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261859280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want one!</p></div><p>They're illegal in most US States, or at least, you need a specific license (basically a breeder/zoo license).  Google "fennec" and you'll find a place for one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want one ! They 're illegal in most US States , or at least , you need a specific license ( basically a breeder/zoo license ) .
Google " fennec " and you 'll find a place for one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want one!They're illegal in most US States, or at least, you need a specific license (basically a breeder/zoo license).
Google "fennec" and you'll find a place for one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30650406</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1231083900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yerf... well, since we were given this planet to thrive, and care for everything, as long as nothing gets hurt, I don't see anything wrong with it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yerf... well , since we were given this planet to thrive , and care for everything , as long as nothing gets hurt , I do n't see anything wrong with it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yerf... well, since we were given this planet to thrive, and care for everything, as long as nothing gets hurt, I don't see anything wrong with it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558806</id>
	<title>HEY MODS GET A CLUE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261825440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey mods, the OP was a joke for cryin' out loud and I found it pretty dang funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey mods , the OP was a joke for cryin ' out loud and I found it pretty dang funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey mods, the OP was a joke for cryin' out loud and I found it pretty dang funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555566</id>
	<title>Misleading title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261840680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was all excited for a second because I thought I'd be reading a story about Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and everyone else over a Fox News and the attempts to make them somewhat more human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was all excited for a second because I thought I 'd be reading a story about Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and everyone else over a Fox News and the attempts to make them somewhat more human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was all excited for a second because I thought I'd be reading a story about Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and everyone else over a Fox News and the attempts to make them somewhat more human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555690</id>
	<title>One sliiiight problem with that idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261842360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vikings.<br>You know.. those blue-eyed, fair-skinned, fair-haired sissies that have found time to discover America during their break of looting and pillaging across Europe.</p><p>Anecdotal evidence such as that might point us to a crazy idea that human beings are not foxes.<br>That they don't eat like foxes, breed like foxes, live as long as foxes, socialize like foxes or THINK like foxes.</p><p>And therein lies the proverbial pudding* - we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking.<br>You know... that central junction box that does most of our nerve-signal routing, which can control the production and use of hormones in our bodies, besides being used for learning skills and thinking shit up.<br>In other words - we are a hell of a lot more complex animals then foxes. We have much greater control (and tolerance) over our hormones AND our life circumstances.<br>Also, we stopped fiddling with evolving our pigmentation back when we discovered clothing. Gave it up completely once we came up with makeup and hair-coloring.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>*I know how the phrase goes. I've misused it intentionally to piss off grammar-Nazis and culture-trolls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vikings.You know.. those blue-eyed , fair-skinned , fair-haired sissies that have found time to discover America during their break of looting and pillaging across Europe.Anecdotal evidence such as that might point us to a crazy idea that human beings are not foxes.That they do n't eat like foxes , breed like foxes , live as long as foxes , socialize like foxes or THINK like foxes.And therein lies the proverbial pudding * - we did n't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking.You know... that central junction box that does most of our nerve-signal routing , which can control the production and use of hormones in our bodies , besides being used for learning skills and thinking shit up.In other words - we are a hell of a lot more complex animals then foxes .
We have much greater control ( and tolerance ) over our hormones AND our life circumstances.Also , we stopped fiddling with evolving our pigmentation back when we discovered clothing .
Gave it up completely once we came up with makeup and hair-coloring .
  * I know how the phrase goes .
I 've misused it intentionally to piss off grammar-Nazis and culture-trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vikings.You know.. those blue-eyed, fair-skinned, fair-haired sissies that have found time to discover America during their break of looting and pillaging across Europe.Anecdotal evidence such as that might point us to a crazy idea that human beings are not foxes.That they don't eat like foxes, breed like foxes, live as long as foxes, socialize like foxes or THINK like foxes.And therein lies the proverbial pudding* - we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking.You know... that central junction box that does most of our nerve-signal routing, which can control the production and use of hormones in our bodies, besides being used for learning skills and thinking shit up.In other words - we are a hell of a lot more complex animals then foxes.
We have much greater control (and tolerance) over our hormones AND our life circumstances.Also, we stopped fiddling with evolving our pigmentation back when we discovered clothing.
Gave it up completely once we came up with makeup and hair-coloring.
  *I know how the phrase goes.
I've misused it intentionally to piss off grammar-Nazis and culture-trolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30577816</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>soliptic</author>
	<datestamp>1262009100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice username you have for commenting on this story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice username you have for commenting on this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice username you have for commenting on this story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559662</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261833720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You act like its use in Hiroshima was a bad thing.  That's entirely a matter of perspective.</p><p>From the perspective of a US serviceman facing death at the hands of the Japanese, it ended the war and saved countless lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You act like its use in Hiroshima was a bad thing .
That 's entirely a matter of perspective.From the perspective of a US serviceman facing death at the hands of the Japanese , it ended the war and saved countless lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You act like its use in Hiroshima was a bad thing.
That's entirely a matter of perspective.From the perspective of a US serviceman facing death at the hands of the Japanese, it ended the war and saved countless lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559608</id>
	<title>Nous avons nag&#233; dans une piscine de merde</title>
	<author>Mana Mana</author>
	<datestamp>1261833060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale</p></div></div><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.</p></div><p>I've been to Pearl Harbor: You're full of shit.</p><p>

Your turn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scaleI 've been to Hiroshima : You 're full of shit.I 've been to Pearl Harbor : You 're full of shit .
Your turn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scaleI've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.I've been to Pearl Harbor: You're full of shit.
Your turn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560136</id>
	<title>we're evolving faster than ever</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1261840320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking.</p></div><p>We seem to have lost most of our body hair since then. What were you expecting, wings and stingers?</p><p>We're evolving faster than ever before because our environment is changing faster than ever before. The creation of modern human civilization is a massive environmental change, and that's an understatement because there just aren't words to fully express such a level of environmental change.</p><p>Evolutionary changes need not be physically obvious. They can involve digestion (lactose tolerance), the immune system (the 1\% who are immune to HIV), or the mind (behavior that defeats birth control).</p><p>If you want to know what future humans will be like, simply look at the selection pressure. The biggest reason why people fail to have surviving offspring is birth control. This can be overcome by increased desire to have kids, or by a tendency to fail in the use of birth control.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words - we are a hell of a lot more complex animals then foxes.</p></div><p>I wouldn't bet on that. We're less complex than our Christmas trees; they have way more DNA than we do, probably because defending a non-mobile organism requires extreme chemical complexity.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, we stopped fiddling with evolving our pigmentation back when we discovered clothing.</p></div><p>You forget <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_selection" title="wikipedia.org">sexual selection</a> [wikipedia.org], particularly mate choice and ornaments. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_selection\_in\_human\_evolution" title="wikipedia.org">more</a> [wikipedia.org])</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we did n't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking.We seem to have lost most of our body hair since then .
What were you expecting , wings and stingers ? We 're evolving faster than ever before because our environment is changing faster than ever before .
The creation of modern human civilization is a massive environmental change , and that 's an understatement because there just are n't words to fully express such a level of environmental change.Evolutionary changes need not be physically obvious .
They can involve digestion ( lactose tolerance ) , the immune system ( the 1 \ % who are immune to HIV ) , or the mind ( behavior that defeats birth control ) .If you want to know what future humans will be like , simply look at the selection pressure .
The biggest reason why people fail to have surviving offspring is birth control .
This can be overcome by increased desire to have kids , or by a tendency to fail in the use of birth control.In other words - we are a hell of a lot more complex animals then foxes.I would n't bet on that .
We 're less complex than our Christmas trees ; they have way more DNA than we do , probably because defending a non-mobile organism requires extreme chemical complexity.Also , we stopped fiddling with evolving our pigmentation back when we discovered clothing.You forget sexual selection [ wikipedia.org ] , particularly mate choice and ornaments .
( more [ wikipedia.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking.We seem to have lost most of our body hair since then.
What were you expecting, wings and stingers?We're evolving faster than ever before because our environment is changing faster than ever before.
The creation of modern human civilization is a massive environmental change, and that's an understatement because there just aren't words to fully express such a level of environmental change.Evolutionary changes need not be physically obvious.
They can involve digestion (lactose tolerance), the immune system (the 1\% who are immune to HIV), or the mind (behavior that defeats birth control).If you want to know what future humans will be like, simply look at the selection pressure.
The biggest reason why people fail to have surviving offspring is birth control.
This can be overcome by increased desire to have kids, or by a tendency to fail in the use of birth control.In other words - we are a hell of a lot more complex animals then foxes.I wouldn't bet on that.
We're less complex than our Christmas trees; they have way more DNA than we do, probably because defending a non-mobile organism requires extreme chemical complexity.Also, we stopped fiddling with evolving our pigmentation back when we discovered clothing.You forget sexual selection [wikipedia.org], particularly mate choice and ornaments.
(more [wikipedia.org])
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560766</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1261849500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever said I was a creationist?</p><p>Which is my point.</p><p>No alternative theory can exist because you "priests of Darwinism" won't allow anything other than Darwinism to explain your view of the world.</p><p>If it is different than yours you immediately bring God into the picture and claim I am a religious nut cake.</p><p>Just remember though, you assumed I was a creationist and I am not, a creationist.</p><p>I simply observed all you people desperately, want to kill "God".  Why you people always respond to any critique of the evolutionary BIBLE of Darwin as a attack by an imaginary being is beyond me.</p><p>You see, my position I don't care which is which, I want the facts.</p><p>Until biochemistry can solve all of these riddles and we begin to produce species out of the lab all the "quaint" little You Tube videos in the world are not going to convince me that Darwin is correct.</p><p>You change ONE freakin protein in the eye and it all comes falling apart.</p><p>One guy on here even thinks the whole thing is deterministic and doesn't work by chance and that "somehow natural selection" makes it work, ywet won't explain what the difference is between random probability and natural selection!</p><p>What a bunch of bull.  If natural selection makes it work, then if it is that well understood, make a new species from a frog then.  I want four eyes on the frog, and I want it purple with speckled poka dots.</p><p>Since it is very well understood "theory" then it shouldn't be too hard to do.</p><p>You Darwinists are so full of yourselves and you point at creationists that can't provide proof of God, yet turn around and endorse a theory of how life works, yet can't produce one freakin new species.</p><p>Your all hypocrites and THAT is one thing you have in common with creationists.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever said I was a creationist ? Which is my point.No alternative theory can exist because you " priests of Darwinism " wo n't allow anything other than Darwinism to explain your view of the world.If it is different than yours you immediately bring God into the picture and claim I am a religious nut cake.Just remember though , you assumed I was a creationist and I am not , a creationist.I simply observed all you people desperately , want to kill " God " .
Why you people always respond to any critique of the evolutionary BIBLE of Darwin as a attack by an imaginary being is beyond me.You see , my position I do n't care which is which , I want the facts.Until biochemistry can solve all of these riddles and we begin to produce species out of the lab all the " quaint " little You Tube videos in the world are not going to convince me that Darwin is correct.You change ONE freakin protein in the eye and it all comes falling apart.One guy on here even thinks the whole thing is deterministic and does n't work by chance and that " somehow natural selection " makes it work , ywet wo n't explain what the difference is between random probability and natural selection ! What a bunch of bull .
If natural selection makes it work , then if it is that well understood , make a new species from a frog then .
I want four eyes on the frog , and I want it purple with speckled poka dots.Since it is very well understood " theory " then it should n't be too hard to do.You Darwinists are so full of yourselves and you point at creationists that ca n't provide proof of God , yet turn around and endorse a theory of how life works , yet ca n't produce one freakin new species.Your all hypocrites and THAT is one thing you have in common with creationists.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever said I was a creationist?Which is my point.No alternative theory can exist because you "priests of Darwinism" won't allow anything other than Darwinism to explain your view of the world.If it is different than yours you immediately bring God into the picture and claim I am a religious nut cake.Just remember though, you assumed I was a creationist and I am not, a creationist.I simply observed all you people desperately, want to kill "God".
Why you people always respond to any critique of the evolutionary BIBLE of Darwin as a attack by an imaginary being is beyond me.You see, my position I don't care which is which, I want the facts.Until biochemistry can solve all of these riddles and we begin to produce species out of the lab all the "quaint" little You Tube videos in the world are not going to convince me that Darwin is correct.You change ONE freakin protein in the eye and it all comes falling apart.One guy on here even thinks the whole thing is deterministic and doesn't work by chance and that "somehow natural selection" makes it work, ywet won't explain what the difference is between random probability and natural selection!What a bunch of bull.
If natural selection makes it work, then if it is that well understood, make a new species from a frog then.
I want four eyes on the frog, and I want it purple with speckled poka dots.Since it is very well understood "theory" then it shouldn't be too hard to do.You Darwinists are so full of yourselves and you point at creationists that can't provide proof of God, yet turn around and endorse a theory of how life works, yet can't produce one freakin new species.Your all hypocrites and THAT is one thing you have in common with creationists.-Hack</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557208</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261855860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90's and even those didn't hit pre WWII numbers.</p></div><p> African Jihads? The largest conflict was/is the Congolese war over resources and power which is also called "The African world war". Though religion has played its part in many regional rebellions and civil wars, it has been a sidekick of the more pressing issues like border disputes, tribe relations and natural resources. The consequences of colonialism and illegal arms trade will last in Africa for many generations to come.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90 's and even those did n't hit pre WWII numbers .
African Jihads ?
The largest conflict was/is the Congolese war over resources and power which is also called " The African world war " .
Though religion has played its part in many regional rebellions and civil wars , it has been a sidekick of the more pressing issues like border disputes , tribe relations and natural resources .
The consequences of colonialism and illegal arms trade will last in Africa for many generations to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90's and even those didn't hit pre WWII numbers.
African Jihads?
The largest conflict was/is the Congolese war over resources and power which is also called "The African world war".
Though religion has played its part in many regional rebellions and civil wars, it has been a sidekick of the more pressing issues like border disputes, tribe relations and natural resources.
The consequences of colonialism and illegal arms trade will last in Africa for many generations to come.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30561296</id>
	<title>Re:Lessons for Human Evolution</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1261944780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You claim that breeding certain people together will produce "healthier, smarter and stronger" people, yet are offended by other people that think breeding can produce healthier, smarter and stronger people.  You are not less racist.  You just have a different group that you think is superior.  You probably never even noticed that Hitler was not an Aryan.<br> <br>

It is funny how those that beat their chests the most about the evil racists, are often the most racist people you can find.  It's simple... When asked if it is genetic or environmental, the answer is almost always "Yes".</htmltext>
<tokenext>You claim that breeding certain people together will produce " healthier , smarter and stronger " people , yet are offended by other people that think breeding can produce healthier , smarter and stronger people .
You are not less racist .
You just have a different group that you think is superior .
You probably never even noticed that Hitler was not an Aryan .
It is funny how those that beat their chests the most about the evil racists , are often the most racist people you can find .
It 's simple... When asked if it is genetic or environmental , the answer is almost always " Yes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You claim that breeding certain people together will produce "healthier, smarter and stronger" people, yet are offended by other people that think breeding can produce healthier, smarter and stronger people.
You are not less racist.
You just have a different group that you think is superior.
You probably never even noticed that Hitler was not an Aryan.
It is funny how those that beat their chests the most about the evil racists, are often the most racist people you can find.
It's simple... When asked if it is genetic or environmental, the answer is almost always "Yes".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556102</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>orasio</author>
	<datestamp>1261846140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god. Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.</p></div><p>I hate to break this to you, but there's no one left to play god if we don't do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never the less , it 's always scary when humans play god .
Something is going to happen eventually , so should be really careful about it.I hate to break this to you , but there 's no one left to play god if we do n't do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god.
Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.I hate to break this to you, but there's no one left to play god if we don't do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556308</id>
	<title>Next up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261848000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they could make smaller, playful koalas and pandas they would make a fortune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they could make smaller , playful koalas and pandas they would make a fortune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they could make smaller, playful koalas and pandas they would make a fortune.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555892</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution - NOT!</title>
	<author>therealkevinkretz</author>
	<datestamp>1261844280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Evolution is neither random nor does it "add new material".  Evolution is the process by which the genetic makeup of a population changes.  Pressure to change can come from selective breeding (with humans guiding which genes are passed along to successive generations) or natural selection (with genes for a preferable trait are passed along more than others).

You seem to be mixing up "evolution" with some of those things, as well as mutation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution is neither random nor does it " add new material " .
Evolution is the process by which the genetic makeup of a population changes .
Pressure to change can come from selective breeding ( with humans guiding which genes are passed along to successive generations ) or natural selection ( with genes for a preferable trait are passed along more than others ) .
You seem to be mixing up " evolution " with some of those things , as well as mutation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution is neither random nor does it "add new material".
Evolution is the process by which the genetic makeup of a population changes.
Pressure to change can come from selective breeding (with humans guiding which genes are passed along to successive generations) or natural selection (with genes for a preferable trait are passed along more than others).
You seem to be mixing up "evolution" with some of those things, as well as mutation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556606</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1261850580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you're point, and I don't consider you to be a troll, but there are some problems with your claim. The difference between white/black people is due to our proximity to the equator. It's how our bodies deal with extreme heat/cold. It's more like the difference between a long haired and short haired dog. If white people turned white as a result of civilization you may have a point, but that's just not true. In the western world Mesopotamia and Egypt developed civilizations much before the white Celts or Germans, and to the best of my knowledge it didn't drastically change their physical appearances. Civilized or not, they still lived closer to the equator so dark features and curly hair were necessary for survival. (look at the Jews - dark skinned while living in Israel, light skinned while living in Europe)</p><p>I also don't think there's any merit to your claim that white people squeal like little girls when frightened while dark skinned people "lash out." This is probably why you were labeled troll, that's pretty racist because, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to support that claim. Even if you could support it, I'm sure a sociological explanation would be better suited than a biological one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you 're point , and I do n't consider you to be a troll , but there are some problems with your claim .
The difference between white/black people is due to our proximity to the equator .
It 's how our bodies deal with extreme heat/cold .
It 's more like the difference between a long haired and short haired dog .
If white people turned white as a result of civilization you may have a point , but that 's just not true .
In the western world Mesopotamia and Egypt developed civilizations much before the white Celts or Germans , and to the best of my knowledge it did n't drastically change their physical appearances .
Civilized or not , they still lived closer to the equator so dark features and curly hair were necessary for survival .
( look at the Jews - dark skinned while living in Israel , light skinned while living in Europe ) I also do n't think there 's any merit to your claim that white people squeal like little girls when frightened while dark skinned people " lash out .
" This is probably why you were labeled troll , that 's pretty racist because , to the best of my knowledge , there is no evidence to support that claim .
Even if you could support it , I 'm sure a sociological explanation would be better suited than a biological one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you're point, and I don't consider you to be a troll, but there are some problems with your claim.
The difference between white/black people is due to our proximity to the equator.
It's how our bodies deal with extreme heat/cold.
It's more like the difference between a long haired and short haired dog.
If white people turned white as a result of civilization you may have a point, but that's just not true.
In the western world Mesopotamia and Egypt developed civilizations much before the white Celts or Germans, and to the best of my knowledge it didn't drastically change their physical appearances.
Civilized or not, they still lived closer to the equator so dark features and curly hair were necessary for survival.
(look at the Jews - dark skinned while living in Israel, light skinned while living in Europe)I also don't think there's any merit to your claim that white people squeal like little girls when frightened while dark skinned people "lash out.
" This is probably why you were labeled troll, that's pretty racist because, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to support that claim.
Even if you could support it, I'm sure a sociological explanation would be better suited than a biological one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555490</id>
	<title>Other species</title>
	<author>alfredos</author>
	<datestamp>1261839180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't wait for a team to show whether the same can be made to politicians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for a team to show whether the same can be made to politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for a team to show whether the same can be made to politicians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557442</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>Stregone</author>
	<datestamp>1261857660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What species something is a completely made up human invention. Polar bears can breed with grizzly bears because they are both bears. People breed different 'species' of snakes to make interesting looking pets too. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with evolutionary theory, just that it is very difficult to name and categorize all living things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What species something is a completely made up human invention .
Polar bears can breed with grizzly bears because they are both bears .
People breed different 'species ' of snakes to make interesting looking pets too .
That does n't mean there is anything wrong with evolutionary theory , just that it is very difficult to name and categorize all living things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What species something is a completely made up human invention.
Polar bears can breed with grizzly bears because they are both bears.
People breed different 'species' of snakes to make interesting looking pets too.
That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with evolutionary theory, just that it is very difficult to name and categorize all living things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902</id>
	<title>cool new pets!</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1261844340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want one!  Foxes are cute and smaller than dogs but clever like cats.</p><p>If they have bred them to be more behaved they would probably be good house pets for urban dwellers. Foxes are pretty adaptable anyway, living off the scraps of society for a few hundred years already.  It's mostly people that keep them out of populated places. That's how man started taming dogs and cats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want one !
Foxes are cute and smaller than dogs but clever like cats.If they have bred them to be more behaved they would probably be good house pets for urban dwellers .
Foxes are pretty adaptable anyway , living off the scraps of society for a few hundred years already .
It 's mostly people that keep them out of populated places .
That 's how man started taming dogs and cats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want one!
Foxes are cute and smaller than dogs but clever like cats.If they have bred them to be more behaved they would probably be good house pets for urban dwellers.
Foxes are pretty adaptable anyway, living off the scraps of society for a few hundred years already.
It's mostly people that keep them out of populated places.
That's how man started taming dogs and cats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557110</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1261854960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fur is warm, soft, and cozy. Spending an entire lifetime in a cage and being killed for your skin is unpleasant, but if there are painless ways of growing beef, there must be painless ways of growing fur.</p><p>There are a lot of things nobody 'needs', but it's hardly a command economy, is it? If there are things anybody wants and can be acquired without undue pain to an animal, I don't see why not.</p><p>Fur has simply become a taboo, and like all taboos, it's more a matter of a knee-jerk reaction than any considered view of the situation (you know, the type that is supposed to be modded 'insightful'). A society that freely consumes leather, milk, eggs, fish and meat can hardly afford to act holy about fur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fur is warm , soft , and cozy .
Spending an entire lifetime in a cage and being killed for your skin is unpleasant , but if there are painless ways of growing beef , there must be painless ways of growing fur.There are a lot of things nobody 'needs ' , but it 's hardly a command economy , is it ?
If there are things anybody wants and can be acquired without undue pain to an animal , I do n't see why not.Fur has simply become a taboo , and like all taboos , it 's more a matter of a knee-jerk reaction than any considered view of the situation ( you know , the type that is supposed to be modded 'insightful ' ) .
A society that freely consumes leather , milk , eggs , fish and meat can hardly afford to act holy about fur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fur is warm, soft, and cozy.
Spending an entire lifetime in a cage and being killed for your skin is unpleasant, but if there are painless ways of growing beef, there must be painless ways of growing fur.There are a lot of things nobody 'needs', but it's hardly a command economy, is it?
If there are things anybody wants and can be acquired without undue pain to an animal, I don't see why not.Fur has simply become a taboo, and like all taboos, it's more a matter of a knee-jerk reaction than any considered view of the situation (you know, the type that is supposed to be modded 'insightful').
A society that freely consumes leather, milk, eggs, fish and meat can hardly afford to act holy about fur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500</id>
	<title>Lessons for Human Evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261839420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this fox experiment, genes determined both behavior and physical appearance.  Intelligence is clearly an element of behavior.  We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution.
<p>
Humankind would necessarily undergo the same sort of evolutionary changes.  We can expect differences in behavior among the different races and ethnic groups.  Evolution changed both the color of the skin and the type of behavior.  Intelligence is one form of behavior.
</p><p>
The belief that all races and all ethnic groups have identical intelligence and identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior is simply an assumption -- without proof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this fox experiment , genes determined both behavior and physical appearance .
Intelligence is clearly an element of behavior .
We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution .
Humankind would necessarily undergo the same sort of evolutionary changes .
We can expect differences in behavior among the different races and ethnic groups .
Evolution changed both the color of the skin and the type of behavior .
Intelligence is one form of behavior .
The belief that all races and all ethnic groups have identical intelligence and identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior is simply an assumption -- without proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this fox experiment, genes determined both behavior and physical appearance.
Intelligence is clearly an element of behavior.
We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution.
Humankind would necessarily undergo the same sort of evolutionary changes.
We can expect differences in behavior among the different races and ethnic groups.
Evolution changed both the color of the skin and the type of behavior.
Intelligence is one form of behavior.
The belief that all races and all ethnic groups have identical intelligence and identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior is simply an assumption -- without proof.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30583054</id>
	<title>Wildness probably didn't take long either</title>
	<author>rayk\_sland</author>
	<datestamp>1262108220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After they left the Ark, I mean...</htmltext>
<tokenext>After they left the Ark , I mean.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After they left the Ark, I mean...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556450</id>
	<title>creationist claptrap</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1261849200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory</p></div></blockquote><p>That the borders between species are a little fuzzy is hardly novel.</p><blockquote><div><p>Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation, particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around.</p></div></blockquote><p>Try drawing the boundaries of the system in the right place.  Hint: that hot yellow thing in the sky during the day counts as "in".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theoryThat the borders between species are a little fuzzy is hardly novel.Third and finally , there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation , particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity , not the other way around.Try drawing the boundaries of the system in the right place .
Hint : that hot yellow thing in the sky during the day counts as " in " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theoryThat the borders between species are a little fuzzy is hardly novel.Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation, particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around.Try drawing the boundaries of the system in the right place.
Hint: that hot yellow thing in the sky during the day counts as "in".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1261838280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies."</p><p>[citation needed]</p><p>USSR was not nice. But creating zombies? It's just a fantasy. This video might have been taken in Afghanistan or Chechnya, if it's real at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy , while learning military tactics and strategies .
" [ citation needed ] USSR was not nice .
But creating zombies ?
It 's just a fantasy .
This video might have been taken in Afghanistan or Chechnya , if it 's real at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies.
"[citation needed]USSR was not nice.
But creating zombies?
It's just a fantasy.
This video might have been taken in Afghanistan or Chechnya, if it's real at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557134</id>
	<title>Re:cool new pets!</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1261855260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello, fox hunter here.  It's been tried, they can be bred and trained, but they are naturally extremely energetic and generally naughty - imagine a two-year old child stuffed with Smarties and given claws and a pair of sharp teeth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , fox hunter here .
It 's been tried , they can be bred and trained , but they are naturally extremely energetic and generally naughty - imagine a two-year old child stuffed with Smarties and given claws and a pair of sharp teeth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, fox hunter here.
It's been tried, they can be bred and trained, but they are naturally extremely energetic and generally naughty - imagine a two-year old child stuffed with Smarties and given claws and a pair of sharp teeth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560242</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Red.Baron.sc</author>
	<datestamp>1261842060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies."</p></div><p>you ever read Ender's game by Orson Scott Card?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy , while learning military tactics and strategies .
" you ever read Ender 's game by Orson Scott Card ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies.
"you ever read Ender's game by Orson Scott Card?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558314</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>fineous fingers</author>
	<datestamp>1261821540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares about fur? Give me my two headed fox!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about fur ?
Give me my two headed fox !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about fur?
Give me my two headed fox!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557784</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>Anspen</author>
	<datestamp>1261860660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point. Therefore you will be campaining to create a humane fur production, right? Larger cages, maybe even free range fur. The same standards for killing them off as there are for cattle, chickens etc.? Perhaps a better use of the meat?

<p>(I agree that the way most fur is created/begotten is very inhumane. But I'm always puzzeled by the hard core campaigners against fur who insist is must be stopped completely)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
Therefore you will be campaining to create a humane fur production , right ?
Larger cages , maybe even free range fur .
The same standards for killing them off as there are for cattle , chickens etc. ?
Perhaps a better use of the meat ?
( I agree that the way most fur is created/begotten is very inhumane .
But I 'm always puzzeled by the hard core campaigners against fur who insist is must be stopped completely )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
Therefore you will be campaining to create a humane fur production, right?
Larger cages, maybe even free range fur.
The same standards for killing them off as there are for cattle, chickens etc.?
Perhaps a better use of the meat?
(I agree that the way most fur is created/begotten is very inhumane.
But I'm always puzzeled by the hard core campaigners against fur who insist is must be stopped completely)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557646</id>
	<title>Re:cool new pets!</title>
	<author>FreeFull</author>
	<datestamp>1261859520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look up Fennec Foxes you will see that some people keep them as pets because they have similar behaviour to domesticated animals, and are indeed very cute. If you're considering having a fox as a pet, this would be probably the best choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look up Fennec Foxes you will see that some people keep them as pets because they have similar behaviour to domesticated animals , and are indeed very cute .
If you 're considering having a fox as a pet , this would be probably the best choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look up Fennec Foxes you will see that some people keep them as pets because they have similar behaviour to domesticated animals, and are indeed very cute.
If you're considering having a fox as a pet, this would be probably the best choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556162</id>
	<title>Radiolab - New Nice</title>
	<author>742Evergreen</author>
	<datestamp>1261846740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WNYC's Radiolab recently did a story on this subject too. The program is split into 3 parts, and the last one is about these foxes. To get a better sense of what the program is about, I would suggest listening to the whole episode. An hour well spent.</p><p><a href="http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/02" title="wnyc.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/02</a> [wnyc.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WNYC 's Radiolab recently did a story on this subject too .
The program is split into 3 parts , and the last one is about these foxes .
To get a better sense of what the program is about , I would suggest listening to the whole episode .
An hour well spent.http : //www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/02 [ wnyc.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WNYC's Radiolab recently did a story on this subject too.
The program is split into 3 parts, and the last one is about these foxes.
To get a better sense of what the program is about, I would suggest listening to the whole episode.
An hour well spent.http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/02 [wnyc.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555612</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261841640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>What's wrong with a little spartan training? In all likelihood, the subjects made up 0.01\% of the country's orphans, and I highly doubt the other 99.99\% had much superior lives.<br><br>Frankly, the only reason USA didn't do the same, or more likely, on a much smaller scale, is the CIA stole the USSR's findings and decided it wasn't cost effective, or government might catch too much heat from population, or some outlandish reason in which the Spartans&amp;#174; were only loyal to themselves, or the group, and never to the state.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with a little spartan training ?
In all likelihood , the subjects made up 0.01 \ % of the country 's orphans , and I highly doubt the other 99.99 \ % had much superior lives.Frankly , the only reason USA did n't do the same , or more likely , on a much smaller scale , is the CIA stole the USSR 's findings and decided it was n't cost effective , or government might catch too much heat from population , or some outlandish reason in which the Spartans   were only loyal to themselves , or the group , and never to the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with a little spartan training?
In all likelihood, the subjects made up 0.01\% of the country's orphans, and I highly doubt the other 99.99\% had much superior lives.Frankly, the only reason USA didn't do the same, or more likely, on a much smaller scale, is the CIA stole the USSR's findings and decided it wasn't cost effective, or government might catch too much heat from population, or some outlandish reason in which the Spartans® were only loyal to themselves, or the group, and never to the state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559336</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution - NOT!</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1261830120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added?</p></div><p>I'm not sure what definition of "genetic information" you're using, but are you aware that the biblical creationist definition of genetic information is "information in genes that does not increase". By this definition, if it gets added to DNA, it's not real genetic information.</p><p>Of course I'm just guessing that you're thinking of the creationist genetic information... Apologies if you're not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added ? I 'm not sure what definition of " genetic information " you 're using , but are you aware that the biblical creationist definition of genetic information is " information in genes that does not increase " .
By this definition , if it gets added to DNA , it 's not real genetic information.Of course I 'm just guessing that you 're thinking of the creationist genetic information... Apologies if you 're not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added?I'm not sure what definition of "genetic information" you're using, but are you aware that the biblical creationist definition of genetic information is "information in genes that does not increase".
By this definition, if it gets added to DNA, it's not real genetic information.Of course I'm just guessing that you're thinking of the creationist genetic information... Apologies if you're not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558348</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261821900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you aware that WW2 was humanity's biggest war ever? Claiming that the casualties of a war are a fraction of humanity's biggest war ever is idiotic and doesn't prove anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you aware that WW2 was humanity 's biggest war ever ?
Claiming that the casualties of a war are a fraction of humanity 's biggest war ever is idiotic and does n't prove anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you aware that WW2 was humanity's biggest war ever?
Claiming that the casualties of a war are a fraction of humanity's biggest war ever is idiotic and doesn't prove anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30562822</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261925160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's nothing scaring</p></div><p>You fucking retarded faggot.  The word is "scary".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing scaringYou fucking retarded faggot .
The word is " scary " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing scaringYou fucking retarded faggot.
The word is "scary".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555622</id>
	<title>Re:Using Brain - NOT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261841760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... nor any scientific evidence of course.</p><p>In evolution there isn't necessarily addition of genes, in most case there is a mutation of existing genes.<br>In Selective Breeding there is *certainly* no loss of "genetic material", there is simply an artificial selection of genes.<br>It's guided evolution.</p><p>Evolution is not about "getting better", it is just about adapting to the environment around you and breeding better. The individuals that survive and breed the most have more chances of passing down their genes, If the conditions requires it some species may even evolve naturally in being *less* intelligent.</p><p>Pick a book that explain evolution for dummies, it's not blasfemy to know how things work in nature, it is blasfemoy not to know how things work, because you commit a sin of arrogance in pretending to know how things work best than nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... nor any scientific evidence of course.In evolution there is n't necessarily addition of genes , in most case there is a mutation of existing genes.In Selective Breeding there is * certainly * no loss of " genetic material " , there is simply an artificial selection of genes.It 's guided evolution.Evolution is not about " getting better " , it is just about adapting to the environment around you and breeding better .
The individuals that survive and breed the most have more chances of passing down their genes , If the conditions requires it some species may even evolve naturally in being * less * intelligent.Pick a book that explain evolution for dummies , it 's not blasfemy to know how things work in nature , it is blasfemoy not to know how things work , because you commit a sin of arrogance in pretending to know how things work best than nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... nor any scientific evidence of course.In evolution there isn't necessarily addition of genes, in most case there is a mutation of existing genes.In Selective Breeding there is *certainly* no loss of "genetic material", there is simply an artificial selection of genes.It's guided evolution.Evolution is not about "getting better", it is just about adapting to the environment around you and breeding better.
The individuals that survive and breed the most have more chances of passing down their genes, If the conditions requires it some species may even evolve naturally in being *less* intelligent.Pick a book that explain evolution for dummies, it's not blasfemy to know how things work in nature, it is blasfemoy not to know how things work, because you commit a sin of arrogance in pretending to know how things work best than nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084</id>
	<title>Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261845960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong.</p><p>The are issues with evolutionary theory, and I think people get confused about certain things like, a species ability to adapt to its environment, is that it fails to explain how a completely different species evolves, number one.</p><p>For example, Polar Bears, which yes due to climate change (Man made or otherwise...) are losing their environment, are adapting by interbreeding with Grizzily bears and producing offspring.  This is happening because the Polar bears are forced to move south because of lack of Icepak.</p><p>Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory, but like a lot of evidence due to climate change, it is being surpressed or just tossed out because it doesn't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species, not by interbreeding between "species".</p><p>Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance, such as developing an entirely different organ for example in a very gradual way.   We already know how intricate DNA is, and the instructions to build cellular organs number in the billions of proteins.   How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents.  Not just mathematically speaking, but no mechnism in biochemistry has been pointed out so far, that would allow for random variations in biochemisty to produce anything but proteins or instruction which kill the organism outright.</p><p>Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation, particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around.</p><p>Something odd is going on with life, for sure.</p><p>As we learn more about life, the case of how life works gets even more odd.</p><p>I don't believe in the "religion" of evolutionary theory, and I think it has held back science for a century in making any real progress in the basic questions in biochemistry, which if you do not tow the line your papers don't get published or funded.</p><p>But I wish evolutionary "priests" of the science would stop trying to kill "God" and let talented young  people with new ideas about how biochemistry works and the mechnisms for change to be done in a more tolerant environment.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit , strong.The are issues with evolutionary theory , and I think people get confused about certain things like , a species ability to adapt to its environment , is that it fails to explain how a completely different species evolves , number one.For example , Polar Bears , which yes due to climate change ( Man made or otherwise... ) are losing their environment , are adapting by interbreeding with Grizzily bears and producing offspring .
This is happening because the Polar bears are forced to move south because of lack of Icepak.Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory , but like a lot of evidence due to climate change , it is being surpressed or just tossed out because it does n't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species , not by interbreeding between " species " .Secondly , it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance , such as developing an entirely different organ for example in a very gradual way .
We already know how intricate DNA is , and the instructions to build cellular organs number in the billions of proteins .
How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents .
Not just mathematically speaking , but no mechnism in biochemistry has been pointed out so far , that would allow for random variations in biochemisty to produce anything but proteins or instruction which kill the organism outright.Third and finally , there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation , particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity , not the other way around.Something odd is going on with life , for sure.As we learn more about life , the case of how life works gets even more odd.I do n't believe in the " religion " of evolutionary theory , and I think it has held back science for a century in making any real progress in the basic questions in biochemistry , which if you do not tow the line your papers do n't get published or funded.But I wish evolutionary " priests " of the science would stop trying to kill " God " and let talented young people with new ideas about how biochemistry works and the mechnisms for change to be done in a more tolerant environment.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong.The are issues with evolutionary theory, and I think people get confused about certain things like, a species ability to adapt to its environment, is that it fails to explain how a completely different species evolves, number one.For example, Polar Bears, which yes due to climate change (Man made or otherwise...) are losing their environment, are adapting by interbreeding with Grizzily bears and producing offspring.
This is happening because the Polar bears are forced to move south because of lack of Icepak.Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory, but like a lot of evidence due to climate change, it is being surpressed or just tossed out because it doesn't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species, not by interbreeding between "species".Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance, such as developing an entirely different organ for example in a very gradual way.
We already know how intricate DNA is, and the instructions to build cellular organs number in the billions of proteins.
How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents.
Not just mathematically speaking, but no mechnism in biochemistry has been pointed out so far, that would allow for random variations in biochemisty to produce anything but proteins or instruction which kill the organism outright.Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation, particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around.Something odd is going on with life, for sure.As we learn more about life, the case of how life works gets even more odd.I don't believe in the "religion" of evolutionary theory, and I think it has held back science for a century in making any real progress in the basic questions in biochemistry, which if you do not tow the line your papers don't get published or funded.But I wish evolutionary "priests" of the science would stop trying to kill "God" and let talented young  people with new ideas about how biochemistry works and the mechnisms for change to be done in a more tolerant environment.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555476</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1261839000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god. Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it."</p><p>We are talking about breeding foxes here.  Just like breeding dogs/cats/horses/plants, which is done by tens of thousands (hundreds? millions?) of people the world over, and has been for thousands of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Never the less , it 's always scary when humans play god .
Something is going to happen eventually , so should be really careful about it .
" We are talking about breeding foxes here .
Just like breeding dogs/cats/horses/plants , which is done by tens of thousands ( hundreds ?
millions ? ) of people the world over , and has been for thousands of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god.
Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.
"We are talking about breeding foxes here.
Just like breeding dogs/cats/horses/plants, which is done by tens of thousands (hundreds?
millions?) of people the world over, and has been for thousands of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30562596</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261921680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>sounds like football to me</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy , while learning military tactics and strategies .
sounds like football to me</tokentext>
<sentencetext> camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies.
sounds like football to me
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555462</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261838820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooo...when gods play gods it isn't scary?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p</p><p>Besides, <i>something</i> always happens eventually; at least until we are long way off the heat death of the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooo...when gods play gods it is n't scary ?
; pBesides , something always happens eventually ; at least until we are long way off the heat death of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooo...when gods play gods it isn't scary?
;pBesides, something always happens eventually; at least until we are long way off the heat death of the universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555738</id>
	<title>Re:Lessons for Human Evolution</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1261842900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While all people are not the same, who gets to decide what features are "important" or "better"?  Right now we use the "market" system of allowing all the people to compete as equally as we can so that ability or even luck is the primary decider. As history shows BAD THINGS HAPPEN when somebody starts deciding what are "good" people and what are "extra" people. Yes, it still happens every day, but civilized people have chosen not to do that.</p><p>In reality that's how humans have evolved though. We tend to flock together in like groups. If somebody is too "different" they tend to get "pushed" out of that society and in the past migrated and started their own group from hardy people that struggled against the elements on their own. If anything, we're running out of places to go, people that "don't fit" can't exactly hop off the Earth just yet so that will actually slow human evolution. Although we do exchange individuals between nations so that the best of the best often meet around the world creating a new type of "global tribe".</p><p>I do think that it would be a clever experiment to try with people.  We have about 100 years of good medical data now, where your parents and grandparents still have records on file to use for typing. I think if something like eHarmony was used to match people not just by personality (which is genetic) but also by genetics you could do this and people would probably even be happier with their mates and families. I think the problem is once a "selection" takes place for the next generation, is it really their fault?  If you breed some to be workers, then don't provide the task you selected for them, who fixes it?  If you selected somebody to be a "worker" versus somebody to be a "businessman" then how do you distribute wealth fairly if you know those people were not "created equal'. And again, you run into the "extra people" problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While all people are not the same , who gets to decide what features are " important " or " better " ?
Right now we use the " market " system of allowing all the people to compete as equally as we can so that ability or even luck is the primary decider .
As history shows BAD THINGS HAPPEN when somebody starts deciding what are " good " people and what are " extra " people .
Yes , it still happens every day , but civilized people have chosen not to do that.In reality that 's how humans have evolved though .
We tend to flock together in like groups .
If somebody is too " different " they tend to get " pushed " out of that society and in the past migrated and started their own group from hardy people that struggled against the elements on their own .
If anything , we 're running out of places to go , people that " do n't fit " ca n't exactly hop off the Earth just yet so that will actually slow human evolution .
Although we do exchange individuals between nations so that the best of the best often meet around the world creating a new type of " global tribe " .I do think that it would be a clever experiment to try with people .
We have about 100 years of good medical data now , where your parents and grandparents still have records on file to use for typing .
I think if something like eHarmony was used to match people not just by personality ( which is genetic ) but also by genetics you could do this and people would probably even be happier with their mates and families .
I think the problem is once a " selection " takes place for the next generation , is it really their fault ?
If you breed some to be workers , then do n't provide the task you selected for them , who fixes it ?
If you selected somebody to be a " worker " versus somebody to be a " businessman " then how do you distribute wealth fairly if you know those people were not " created equal' .
And again , you run into the " extra people " problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While all people are not the same, who gets to decide what features are "important" or "better"?
Right now we use the "market" system of allowing all the people to compete as equally as we can so that ability or even luck is the primary decider.
As history shows BAD THINGS HAPPEN when somebody starts deciding what are "good" people and what are "extra" people.
Yes, it still happens every day, but civilized people have chosen not to do that.In reality that's how humans have evolved though.
We tend to flock together in like groups.
If somebody is too "different" they tend to get "pushed" out of that society and in the past migrated and started their own group from hardy people that struggled against the elements on their own.
If anything, we're running out of places to go, people that "don't fit" can't exactly hop off the Earth just yet so that will actually slow human evolution.
Although we do exchange individuals between nations so that the best of the best often meet around the world creating a new type of "global tribe".I do think that it would be a clever experiment to try with people.
We have about 100 years of good medical data now, where your parents and grandparents still have records on file to use for typing.
I think if something like eHarmony was used to match people not just by personality (which is genetic) but also by genetics you could do this and people would probably even be happier with their mates and families.
I think the problem is once a "selection" takes place for the next generation, is it really their fault?
If you breed some to be workers, then don't provide the task you selected for them, who fixes it?
If you selected somebody to be a "worker" versus somebody to be a "businessman" then how do you distribute wealth fairly if you know those people were not "created equal'.
And again, you run into the "extra people" problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555486</id>
	<title>Playing God</title>
	<author>Potor</author>
	<datestamp>1261839120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All our science and technology is based on the idea that we can understand, control, and improve nature.
</p><p>Playing God, in the Xn tradition, is <i>creatio ex nihilo</i>. Tweaking nature - even with catastrophic results - is not playing God.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All our science and technology is based on the idea that we can understand , control , and improve nature .
Playing God , in the Xn tradition , is creatio ex nihilo .
Tweaking nature - even with catastrophic results - is not playing God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All our science and technology is based on the idea that we can understand, control, and improve nature.
Playing God, in the Xn tradition, is creatio ex nihilo.
Tweaking nature - even with catastrophic results - is not playing God.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</id>
	<title>Fur sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261843800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fur sucks.  The animals spend their entire lives in cages and are then killed in very pain full ways.  Nobody needs fur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fur sucks .
The animals spend their entire lives in cages and are then killed in very pain full ways .
Nobody needs fur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fur sucks.
The animals spend their entire lives in cages and are then killed in very pain full ways.
Nobody needs fur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557186</id>
	<title>In soviet Russia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261855680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Foxes domesticates dogs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Foxes domesticates dogs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foxes domesticates dogs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558204</id>
	<title>Blashford Snell's father</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1261820520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The father of Blashford Snell, the British soldier and explorer, was a Church of England clergyman in a small town near Maidenhead, Berks. He somehow acquired a pair of fox cubs whose mother had been killed, and they were raised by one of his cats. He liked to tell the story of how the wife of the local MFH (Master of Fox Hounds) came to tea and suddenly realised what was unusual about the two little "kittens" sleeping by the fire. She took it as a personal insult.<p>They are not suitable pets unless they live outside when older and have a lot of space for territory, so are unsuited to urban areas, but the whole point of the Russian breeding program is to overcome this.</p><p>It's perhaps worth pointing out that there are similar breeding programs for "super-domesticated" dogs, like the cockapoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The father of Blashford Snell , the British soldier and explorer , was a Church of England clergyman in a small town near Maidenhead , Berks .
He somehow acquired a pair of fox cubs whose mother had been killed , and they were raised by one of his cats .
He liked to tell the story of how the wife of the local MFH ( Master of Fox Hounds ) came to tea and suddenly realised what was unusual about the two little " kittens " sleeping by the fire .
She took it as a personal insult.They are not suitable pets unless they live outside when older and have a lot of space for territory , so are unsuited to urban areas , but the whole point of the Russian breeding program is to overcome this.It 's perhaps worth pointing out that there are similar breeding programs for " super-domesticated " dogs , like the cockapoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The father of Blashford Snell, the British soldier and explorer, was a Church of England clergyman in a small town near Maidenhead, Berks.
He somehow acquired a pair of fox cubs whose mother had been killed, and they were raised by one of his cats.
He liked to tell the story of how the wife of the local MFH (Master of Fox Hounds) came to tea and suddenly realised what was unusual about the two little "kittens" sleeping by the fire.
She took it as a personal insult.They are not suitable pets unless they live outside when older and have a lot of space for territory, so are unsuited to urban areas, but the whole point of the Russian breeding program is to overcome this.It's perhaps worth pointing out that there are similar breeding programs for "super-domesticated" dogs, like the cockapoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555972</id>
	<title>Re:Still relevant to our understanding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261845060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...</p></div><p>"Every step"?  I think most of them are still waiting to hear about <b>one significant step</b> that has been demonstrated to be through non-artificially-induced genetic error.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as though we have n't heard Creationists ' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error... " Every step " ?
I think most of them are still waiting to hear about one significant step that has been demonstrated to be through non-artificially-induced genetic error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error..."Every step"?
I think most of them are still waiting to hear about one significant step that has been demonstrated to be through non-artificially-induced genetic error.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555880</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Jaktar</author>
	<datestamp>1261844220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GP may be a troll, but is more off topic than anything else.  This experiment didn't modify genes or dna.  It was simple breeding (in this case domestication through human selection).  The results of this study show how quickly animal species can be domesticated and show a potential path for wolves to have been domesticated while living on the fringes of human settlements.</p><p>Sopssa said, "Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god. Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it."<br>I say "It's always scary when certain humans twist scientific results to push religious agenda.  Something is going to happen eventually, so you should really think about it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GP may be a troll , but is more off topic than anything else .
This experiment did n't modify genes or dna .
It was simple breeding ( in this case domestication through human selection ) .
The results of this study show how quickly animal species can be domesticated and show a potential path for wolves to have been domesticated while living on the fringes of human settlements.Sopssa said , " Never the less , it 's always scary when humans play god .
Something is going to happen eventually , so should be really careful about it .
" I say " It 's always scary when certain humans twist scientific results to push religious agenda .
Something is going to happen eventually , so you should really think about it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GP may be a troll, but is more off topic than anything else.
This experiment didn't modify genes or dna.
It was simple breeding (in this case domestication through human selection).
The results of this study show how quickly animal species can be domesticated and show a potential path for wolves to have been domesticated while living on the fringes of human settlements.Sopssa said, "Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god.
Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.
"I say "It's always scary when certain humans twist scientific results to push religious agenda.
Something is going to happen eventually, so you should really think about it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559364</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1261830420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that was kept in check by the threat of nukes....</p><p>The doctrine of MAD only works if both sides have an about equal value on human life. A terrorist enemy that promises 72 virgins or whatever to somebody willing to kill themselves while they kill others, MAD loses its deterrent value. Despite the communist atheistic doctrines, both sides in the Cold War had a deep Christian tradition going back many centuries. Part of that tradition is the sanctity of life. If, or rather when a radical doctrinaire government, such as Iran gets a hold of nukes, the doctrine of MAD will no longer work, if these terrible weapons make it possible to totally destroy a hated enemy. People willing to fly airliners into buildings, will have no second thoughts about using nuclear weapons on their enemies. When the terrorists get control over weapons of mass destruction, the prophecies Jesus Christ about the most terrible time to ever be on planet Earth will be fulfilled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that was kept in check by the threat of nukes....The doctrine of MAD only works if both sides have an about equal value on human life .
A terrorist enemy that promises 72 virgins or whatever to somebody willing to kill themselves while they kill others , MAD loses its deterrent value .
Despite the communist atheistic doctrines , both sides in the Cold War had a deep Christian tradition going back many centuries .
Part of that tradition is the sanctity of life .
If , or rather when a radical doctrinaire government , such as Iran gets a hold of nukes , the doctrine of MAD will no longer work , if these terrible weapons make it possible to totally destroy a hated enemy .
People willing to fly airliners into buildings , will have no second thoughts about using nuclear weapons on their enemies .
When the terrorists get control over weapons of mass destruction , the prophecies Jesus Christ about the most terrible time to ever be on planet Earth will be fulfilled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that was kept in check by the threat of nukes....The doctrine of MAD only works if both sides have an about equal value on human life.
A terrorist enemy that promises 72 virgins or whatever to somebody willing to kill themselves while they kill others, MAD loses its deterrent value.
Despite the communist atheistic doctrines, both sides in the Cold War had a deep Christian tradition going back many centuries.
Part of that tradition is the sanctity of life.
If, or rather when a radical doctrinaire government, such as Iran gets a hold of nukes, the doctrine of MAD will no longer work, if these terrible weapons make it possible to totally destroy a hated enemy.
People willing to fly airliners into buildings, will have no second thoughts about using nuclear weapons on their enemies.
When the terrorists get control over weapons of mass destruction, the prophecies Jesus Christ about the most terrible time to ever be on planet Earth will be fulfilled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556980</id>
	<title>And after 50 years ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1261853700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan\_Fox" title="wikipedia.org">this</a> [wikipedia.org] is the fox we end up with.
</p><p>That's fine by me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this [ wikipedia.org ] is the fox we end up with .
That 's fine by me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this [wikipedia.org] is the fox we end up with.
That's fine by me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564444</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1261942740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My fur hat, made from fox that I hunted down and killed personally, caused less death than your cotton jacket.</p></div><p>That is very likely completly wrong. We don't do farming because we like being cruel to animals, but because its highly effective and the only way we can produce enough goods for all the people out there. If all the millions of people out there would go out into the wild and start respectfully killing foxes you would very soon have a completly extinct all foxes out there. And having them all drive into the wild with their SUV would also soon end up being far worse then shipping stuff around with a big truck, as that truck will carry hundreds or thousands of items, not just one fox hat.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I hunt in a sustainable way.</p></div><p>Its only sustainable when very few people do it, it doesn't scale up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My fur hat , made from fox that I hunted down and killed personally , caused less death than your cotton jacket.That is very likely completly wrong .
We do n't do farming because we like being cruel to animals , but because its highly effective and the only way we can produce enough goods for all the people out there .
If all the millions of people out there would go out into the wild and start respectfully killing foxes you would very soon have a completly extinct all foxes out there .
And having them all drive into the wild with their SUV would also soon end up being far worse then shipping stuff around with a big truck , as that truck will carry hundreds or thousands of items , not just one fox hat.I hunt in a sustainable way.Its only sustainable when very few people do it , it does n't scale up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My fur hat, made from fox that I hunted down and killed personally, caused less death than your cotton jacket.That is very likely completly wrong.
We don't do farming because we like being cruel to animals, but because its highly effective and the only way we can produce enough goods for all the people out there.
If all the millions of people out there would go out into the wild and start respectfully killing foxes you would very soon have a completly extinct all foxes out there.
And having them all drive into the wild with their SUV would also soon end up being far worse then shipping stuff around with a big truck, as that truck will carry hundreds or thousands of items, not just one fox hat.I hunt in a sustainable way.Its only sustainable when very few people do it, it doesn't scale up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556168</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1261846860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war. after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did. for the most part they stay pretty local and don't escalate into the blood baths of old.</p></div></blockquote><p>The major problem with your argument is that it only holds until nuclear bombs start being used.  Saving multi-millions in the short term to in the long term kill billions isn't a good investment.  The one key argument that has been made about weapons technology as it has progressed has always seemed to be that no one would be crazy enough to use it.  Yet, in the end, to start a war in which you know the opponent has mass killing equipment strongly hints that your opponent is crazy and you must use your own mass killing equipment for your protection.  With nuclear weapons, self-preservation has translated that into proxy, local wars, so the opponent is never directly a nuclear power.  The biggest mistake made so far in this cold war was giving a proxy, Cuba, nuclear weapons and having it in direct conflict with the opponent.</p><blockquote><div><p>look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started. granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush,</p></div></blockquote><p>No, this was motivated by "if it bleeds, it leads", a very American-centric view of the death count (a lot more than 3000 people died), and a general desire by most humans to not fight in wars for years.</p><blockquote><div><p>but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad.</p></div></blockquote><p>"initial planning" also considered the threat of chemical weapons.  In short, initial planning had a very unrealistic idea of what Iraq had to offer militarily and chose to act when there was still a significant asymmetrical advantage.</p><blockquote><div><p>major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours. the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes. however, look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities. that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.</p></div></blockquote><p>At one level, you're right, in that both sides chose to fight a proxy war.  But, if they had chosen differently, do you really think we'd still be here today?  Every single conflict that arises now that involves directly or indirectly a nuclear power could be the end of most of humanity.  If you were a billionaire, would you risk nearly all of your fortune to play a single throw of craps?  Would you feel proud or happy to have repeatedly played and never lost but not really gained either?</p><p>Perhaps I will judge things differently when a nuclear weapon is finally used on a major city.  Only if a nuclear war doesn't start then will I really consider nuclear weapons as humanity's bogeyman, not their self-created downfall.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war .
after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did .
for the most part they stay pretty local and do n't escalate into the blood baths of old.The major problem with your argument is that it only holds until nuclear bombs start being used .
Saving multi-millions in the short term to in the long term kill billions is n't a good investment .
The one key argument that has been made about weapons technology as it has progressed has always seemed to be that no one would be crazy enough to use it .
Yet , in the end , to start a war in which you know the opponent has mass killing equipment strongly hints that your opponent is crazy and you must use your own mass killing equipment for your protection .
With nuclear weapons , self-preservation has translated that into proxy , local wars , so the opponent is never directly a nuclear power .
The biggest mistake made so far in this cold war was giving a proxy , Cuba , nuclear weapons and having it in direct conflict with the opponent.look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started .
granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush,No , this was motivated by " if it bleeds , it leads " , a very American-centric view of the death count ( a lot more than 3000 people died ) , and a general desire by most humans to not fight in wars for years.but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad .
" initial planning " also considered the threat of chemical weapons .
In short , initial planning had a very unrealistic idea of what Iraq had to offer militarily and chose to act when there was still a significant asymmetrical advantage.major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours .
the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes .
however , look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities .
that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.At one level , you 're right , in that both sides chose to fight a proxy war .
But , if they had chosen differently , do you really think we 'd still be here today ?
Every single conflict that arises now that involves directly or indirectly a nuclear power could be the end of most of humanity .
If you were a billionaire , would you risk nearly all of your fortune to play a single throw of craps ?
Would you feel proud or happy to have repeatedly played and never lost but not really gained either ? Perhaps I will judge things differently when a nuclear weapon is finally used on a major city .
Only if a nuclear war does n't start then will I really consider nuclear weapons as humanity 's bogeyman , not their self-created downfall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war.
after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did.
for the most part they stay pretty local and don't escalate into the blood baths of old.The major problem with your argument is that it only holds until nuclear bombs start being used.
Saving multi-millions in the short term to in the long term kill billions isn't a good investment.
The one key argument that has been made about weapons technology as it has progressed has always seemed to be that no one would be crazy enough to use it.
Yet, in the end, to start a war in which you know the opponent has mass killing equipment strongly hints that your opponent is crazy and you must use your own mass killing equipment for your protection.
With nuclear weapons, self-preservation has translated that into proxy, local wars, so the opponent is never directly a nuclear power.
The biggest mistake made so far in this cold war was giving a proxy, Cuba, nuclear weapons and having it in direct conflict with the opponent.look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started.
granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush,No, this was motivated by "if it bleeds, it leads", a very American-centric view of the death count (a lot more than 3000 people died), and a general desire by most humans to not fight in wars for years.but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad.
"initial planning" also considered the threat of chemical weapons.
In short, initial planning had a very unrealistic idea of what Iraq had to offer militarily and chose to act when there was still a significant asymmetrical advantage.major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours.
the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes.
however, look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities.
that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.At one level, you're right, in that both sides chose to fight a proxy war.
But, if they had chosen differently, do you really think we'd still be here today?
Every single conflict that arises now that involves directly or indirectly a nuclear power could be the end of most of humanity.
If you were a billionaire, would you risk nearly all of your fortune to play a single throw of craps?
Would you feel proud or happy to have repeatedly played and never lost but not really gained either?Perhaps I will judge things differently when a nuclear weapon is finally used on a major city.
Only if a nuclear war doesn't start then will I really consider nuclear weapons as humanity's bogeyman, not their self-created downfall.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559098</id>
	<title>Re:Lessons for Human Evolution</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1261827840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's been already proven otherwise. Thing is, we as society deal with individuals themselves rather than large ethnic groups and there are far larger differences between individuals than there is among different ethnicities, so no, racism is still stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's been already proven otherwise .
Thing is , we as society deal with individuals themselves rather than large ethnic groups and there are far larger differences between individuals than there is among different ethnicities , so no , racism is still stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's been already proven otherwise.
Thing is, we as society deal with individuals themselves rather than large ethnic groups and there are far larger differences between individuals than there is among different ethnicities, so no, racism is still stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555604</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution - NOT!</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1261841640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added? Or has existing information, already within the genome been lost through selective breeding. The latter I think! Foxes still produce after their kind and their offspring are still foxes (albeit with less genetic material than their progenitors)</p></div><p>Information is a rather abstract concept.</p><p>The digit "1"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how much information does that contain?  Is it an "on" state?  Does it symbolize a single object?  Is it being used instead of an "i"?  What if we stick a "0" digit beside it...  "10" - is that ten?  Or just two?  Or maybe an "on" state and an "off" state?  How much information is contained in those digits?  If I move from a binary system to a decimal system, have I created more information?  Lost information?</p><p>Just because somebody is born with webbed toes doesn't mean they have "more" information in their DNA.  It's just being processed and expressed differently.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>People really need to learn the difference between Evolution (which is adding new material, through unintelligent, uncontrolled random accidental chance process) and Selective Breeding (which is not evolution, but rather devolution).</p></div><p>Evolution is the process by which various traits and mutations are selected to be passed on to future generations.  Typically we talk about "survival of the fittest" where the most beneficial mutations and traits are most likely to be passed on...  But that isn't necessarily the case.  Plenty of non-negative traits and mutations can be passed on as well.</p><p>Selective breeding is simply intelligently-driven evolution.  Instead of letting environmental pressures and blind luck select the traits or mutations we want to pass along, human beings do it, by only allowing the right animals to breed.</p><p>If you want proof that evolution happens you need look no further than your nearest dog show.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added ?
Or has existing information , already within the genome been lost through selective breeding .
The latter I think !
Foxes still produce after their kind and their offspring are still foxes ( albeit with less genetic material than their progenitors ) Information is a rather abstract concept.The digit " 1 " ... how much information does that contain ?
Is it an " on " state ?
Does it symbolize a single object ?
Is it being used instead of an " i " ?
What if we stick a " 0 " digit beside it... " 10 " - is that ten ?
Or just two ?
Or maybe an " on " state and an " off " state ?
How much information is contained in those digits ?
If I move from a binary system to a decimal system , have I created more information ?
Lost information ? Just because somebody is born with webbed toes does n't mean they have " more " information in their DNA .
It 's just being processed and expressed differently.People really need to learn the difference between Evolution ( which is adding new material , through unintelligent , uncontrolled random accidental chance process ) and Selective Breeding ( which is not evolution , but rather devolution ) .Evolution is the process by which various traits and mutations are selected to be passed on to future generations .
Typically we talk about " survival of the fittest " where the most beneficial mutations and traits are most likely to be passed on... But that is n't necessarily the case .
Plenty of non-negative traits and mutations can be passed on as well.Selective breeding is simply intelligently-driven evolution .
Instead of letting environmental pressures and blind luck select the traits or mutations we want to pass along , human beings do it , by only allowing the right animals to breed.If you want proof that evolution happens you need look no further than your nearest dog show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added?
Or has existing information, already within the genome been lost through selective breeding.
The latter I think!
Foxes still produce after their kind and their offspring are still foxes (albeit with less genetic material than their progenitors)Information is a rather abstract concept.The digit "1" ... how much information does that contain?
Is it an "on" state?
Does it symbolize a single object?
Is it being used instead of an "i"?
What if we stick a "0" digit beside it...  "10" - is that ten?
Or just two?
Or maybe an "on" state and an "off" state?
How much information is contained in those digits?
If I move from a binary system to a decimal system, have I created more information?
Lost information?Just because somebody is born with webbed toes doesn't mean they have "more" information in their DNA.
It's just being processed and expressed differently.People really need to learn the difference between Evolution (which is adding new material, through unintelligent, uncontrolled random accidental chance process) and Selective Breeding (which is not evolution, but rather devolution).Evolution is the process by which various traits and mutations are selected to be passed on to future generations.
Typically we talk about "survival of the fittest" where the most beneficial mutations and traits are most likely to be passed on...  But that isn't necessarily the case.
Plenty of non-negative traits and mutations can be passed on as well.Selective breeding is simply intelligently-driven evolution.
Instead of letting environmental pressures and blind luck select the traits or mutations we want to pass along, human beings do it, by only allowing the right animals to breed.If you want proof that evolution happens you need look no further than your nearest dog show.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559954</id>
	<title>Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261837620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody thinks that human are not part of Nature!<br>Everything we do or invent is as natural as the loge of a dog. We only think we are better and somehow, outsiders.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>Ridiculous beeings, these humans...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody thinks that human are not part of Nature ! Everything we do or invent is as natural as the loge of a dog .
We only think we are better and somehow , outsiders .
: ) Ridiculous beeings , these humans.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody thinks that human are not part of Nature!Everything we do or invent is as natural as the loge of a dog.
We only think we are better and somehow, outsiders.
:)Ridiculous beeings, these humans...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558912</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261826220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies."</p></div><p>That&rsquo;s an invention of the Prussian era. It&rsquo;s called &ldquo;school&rdquo;! ^^ (Seriously! That&rsquo;s the point and how school started. And you wondered why it&rsquo;s so dull, just trains people to follow without thinking and also to do automate tasks.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy , while learning military tactics and strategies .
" That    s an invention of the Prussian era .
It    s called    school    !
^ ^ ( Seriously !
That    s the point and how school started .
And you wondered why it    s so dull , just trains people to follow without thinking and also to do automate tasks .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies.
"That’s an invention of the Prussian era.
It’s called “school”!
^^ (Seriously!
That’s the point and how school started.
And you wondered why it’s so dull, just trains people to follow without thinking and also to do automate tasks.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557714</id>
	<title>Re:Meat sucks, leather sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261860120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a vegan dumbass.  Probably longer than you have been alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a vegan dumbass .
Probably longer than you have been alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a vegan dumbass.
Probably longer than you have been alive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556460</id>
	<title>Hippies suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261849260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They spend their lives trying to make everyone else miserable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They spend their lives trying to make everyone else miserable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They spend their lives trying to make everyone else miserable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558606</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>stabiesoft</author>
	<datestamp>1261824120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it has more to do with sun exposure.Fair people burn. I imagine there may even be some upside to fair complexions in cold weather, I am just unaware of any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it has more to do with sun exposure.Fair people burn .
I imagine there may even be some upside to fair complexions in cold weather , I am just unaware of any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it has more to do with sun exposure.Fair people burn.
I imagine there may even be some upside to fair complexions in cold weather, I am just unaware of any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564056</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1261938840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason we dropped "the bomb" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because estimates of American deaths to finish the war in a traditional assault on Japan were in the millions.</p><p>We (of course, I mean our military leaders) decided that the only way to weaken Japan's resolve and end the war was to kill several hundred thousand Japanese civilians.  By showing the willingness to use the weapon, we made it clear to Japan that if they did not surrender, we would drop the bomb on more cities until they did.  It was a terrible thing, yes, but it saved millions of lives in the long run - both American and Japanese.</p><p>You should also note that the target cities, while not tiny, were definitely not among Japan's largest cities.  This was to kill as few people as possible and still break Japan's will to continue the war.</p><p>"The Bomb" has never been used callously, as evidenced by the fact that it has never been used since then, and you must consider the terrible position the American leaders were in.  Do you kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and end the war?  Or do you send millions of soldiers to their deaths killing millions more Japanese soldiers to end the war?  The Japanese culture at the time was a culture of victory or death.  Soldiers did not yield when it was only their lives on the line - they would kill themselves trying to kill the enemy.</p><p>So don't bemoan the use of the atomic bomb while ignoring the consequences of not using it.  Would it be better if the bomb never existed?  Perhaps, but we must face reality, not live in fantasy.  The bomb would have been invented by someone else eventually, better to use it to prevent more deaths than cause more destruction with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason we dropped " the bomb " on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because estimates of American deaths to finish the war in a traditional assault on Japan were in the millions.We ( of course , I mean our military leaders ) decided that the only way to weaken Japan 's resolve and end the war was to kill several hundred thousand Japanese civilians .
By showing the willingness to use the weapon , we made it clear to Japan that if they did not surrender , we would drop the bomb on more cities until they did .
It was a terrible thing , yes , but it saved millions of lives in the long run - both American and Japanese.You should also note that the target cities , while not tiny , were definitely not among Japan 's largest cities .
This was to kill as few people as possible and still break Japan 's will to continue the war .
" The Bomb " has never been used callously , as evidenced by the fact that it has never been used since then , and you must consider the terrible position the American leaders were in .
Do you kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and end the war ?
Or do you send millions of soldiers to their deaths killing millions more Japanese soldiers to end the war ?
The Japanese culture at the time was a culture of victory or death .
Soldiers did not yield when it was only their lives on the line - they would kill themselves trying to kill the enemy.So do n't bemoan the use of the atomic bomb while ignoring the consequences of not using it .
Would it be better if the bomb never existed ?
Perhaps , but we must face reality , not live in fantasy .
The bomb would have been invented by someone else eventually , better to use it to prevent more deaths than cause more destruction with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason we dropped "the bomb" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because estimates of American deaths to finish the war in a traditional assault on Japan were in the millions.We (of course, I mean our military leaders) decided that the only way to weaken Japan's resolve and end the war was to kill several hundred thousand Japanese civilians.
By showing the willingness to use the weapon, we made it clear to Japan that if they did not surrender, we would drop the bomb on more cities until they did.
It was a terrible thing, yes, but it saved millions of lives in the long run - both American and Japanese.You should also note that the target cities, while not tiny, were definitely not among Japan's largest cities.
This was to kill as few people as possible and still break Japan's will to continue the war.
"The Bomb" has never been used callously, as evidenced by the fact that it has never been used since then, and you must consider the terrible position the American leaders were in.
Do you kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and end the war?
Or do you send millions of soldiers to their deaths killing millions more Japanese soldiers to end the war?
The Japanese culture at the time was a culture of victory or death.
Soldiers did not yield when it was only their lives on the line - they would kill themselves trying to kill the enemy.So don't bemoan the use of the atomic bomb while ignoring the consequences of not using it.
Would it be better if the bomb never existed?
Perhaps, but we must face reality, not live in fantasy.
The bomb would have been invented by someone else eventually, better to use it to prevent more deaths than cause more destruction with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559724</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1261834380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They weren't REALLY boys. They started off as foxes.
<p>
--Greg<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were n't REALLY boys .
They started off as foxes .
--Greg : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They weren't REALLY boys.
They started off as foxes.
--Greg :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558864</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261825980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100 million civilian deaths in WW2? Citation please???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 million civilian deaths in WW2 ?
Citation please ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 million civilian deaths in WW2?
Citation please??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563870</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1261937100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to break it to you, but dogs, numerous as they are, are just a small subset of the canine species.</p><p>Wolves cannot (at least so far) be tamed.  Neither can hyennas, or coyotes, or foxes (though foxes are close).  Dogs with some wolf ancestry tend to be very wild and difficult to control, for example.  For dogs and cats, our beloved houshold companions, it has taken thousands of years to get them to where they are today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you , but dogs , numerous as they are , are just a small subset of the canine species.Wolves can not ( at least so far ) be tamed .
Neither can hyennas , or coyotes , or foxes ( though foxes are close ) .
Dogs with some wolf ancestry tend to be very wild and difficult to control , for example .
For dogs and cats , our beloved houshold companions , it has taken thousands of years to get them to where they are today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you, but dogs, numerous as they are, are just a small subset of the canine species.Wolves cannot (at least so far) be tamed.
Neither can hyennas, or coyotes, or foxes (though foxes are close).
Dogs with some wolf ancestry tend to be very wild and difficult to control, for example.
For dogs and cats, our beloved houshold companions, it has taken thousands of years to get them to where they are today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557002</id>
	<title>Re:Cold War Dog Fight Joke</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1261853940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Russians found the biggest meanest Doberman and Rottweiler dogs in the world and bred them with the biggest meanest Siberian wolves.</i></p><p>Fun Fact:</p><p>Why would Russians bother with breeding Doberman and Rottweilers when they already have something <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian\_Ovcharka" title="wikipedia.org">much bigger and stronger</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>Another Fun Fact:</p><p>Google for recent events in Georgia, Grozny or Azerbaijan and you'll discover their owners are no less intimidating than their dogs.  Apparently, the locals consider bear hunting with Ovcharkas as "sport".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Russians found the biggest meanest Doberman and Rottweiler dogs in the world and bred them with the biggest meanest Siberian wolves.Fun Fact : Why would Russians bother with breeding Doberman and Rottweilers when they already have something much bigger and stronger [ wikipedia.org ] ? Another Fun Fact : Google for recent events in Georgia , Grozny or Azerbaijan and you 'll discover their owners are no less intimidating than their dogs .
Apparently , the locals consider bear hunting with Ovcharkas as " sport " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Russians found the biggest meanest Doberman and Rottweiler dogs in the world and bred them with the biggest meanest Siberian wolves.Fun Fact:Why would Russians bother with breeding Doberman and Rottweilers when they already have something much bigger and stronger [wikipedia.org]?Another Fun Fact:Google for recent events in Georgia, Grozny or Azerbaijan and you'll discover their owners are no less intimidating than their dogs.
Apparently, the locals consider bear hunting with Ovcharkas as "sport".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557288</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1261856580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I personally hate humans for what they are and represent. Those of us with intelligence stand apart from the human race, unhindered but such trivial shit as trying to justify racism.... humans are a bunch of dumb fucking animals that will never learn.</p></div><p>Yeah, that doesn't sound like racism at all.</p><p>Mindless hate is not a mark of intelligence, buddy. But then neither is posting anonymously, so what are ya gonna do?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally hate humans for what they are and represent .
Those of us with intelligence stand apart from the human race , unhindered but such trivial shit as trying to justify racism.... humans are a bunch of dumb fucking animals that will never learn.Yeah , that does n't sound like racism at all.Mindless hate is not a mark of intelligence , buddy .
But then neither is posting anonymously , so what are ya gon na do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally hate humans for what they are and represent.
Those of us with intelligence stand apart from the human race, unhindered but such trivial shit as trying to justify racism.... humans are a bunch of dumb fucking animals that will never learn.Yeah, that doesn't sound like racism at all.Mindless hate is not a mark of intelligence, buddy.
But then neither is posting anonymously, so what are ya gonna do?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559004</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1261826940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.</p></div><p>Let's look at the facts: people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day.</p></div><p>I know, I've been there. At the anniversary of the bomb: There's a huge peace rally, I signed petitions against the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, I stand by that signature..</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So you're completely full of shit</p></div><p>I never claimed nobody lived there anymore, I don't know where you got that from, you moron.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and have probably never been to Hiroshima in the first place.</p></div><p>I'm rubber and you're glue, you call me a liar, it bounces back to you.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Secondly, the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2.</p></div><p>Yes, and he was grossly misinformed about the number of deaths in today's war, his opinion was uninformed and calling me names doesn't make him less ignorant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been to Hiroshima : You 're full of shit.Let 's look at the facts : people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day.I know , I 've been there .
At the anniversary of the bomb : There 's a huge peace rally , I signed petitions against the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons , I stand by that signature..So you 're completely full of shitI never claimed nobody lived there anymore , I do n't know where you got that from , you moron.and have probably never been to Hiroshima in the first place.I 'm rubber and you 're glue , you call me a liar , it bounces back to you.Secondly , the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2.Yes , and he was grossly misinformed about the number of deaths in today 's war , his opinion was uninformed and calling me names does n't make him less ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.Let's look at the facts: people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day.I know, I've been there.
At the anniversary of the bomb: There's a huge peace rally, I signed petitions against the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, I stand by that signature..So you're completely full of shitI never claimed nobody lived there anymore, I don't know where you got that from, you moron.and have probably never been to Hiroshima in the first place.I'm rubber and you're glue, you call me a liar, it bounces back to you.Secondly, the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2.Yes, and he was grossly misinformed about the number of deaths in today's war, his opinion was uninformed and calling me names doesn't make him less ignorant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560672</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>line-bundle</author>
	<datestamp>1261848420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the sort fuckheaded comment and thought process which perpetuates the racism in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the sort fuckheaded comment and thought process which perpetuates the racism in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the sort fuckheaded comment and thought process which perpetuates the racism in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30620558</id>
	<title>Re:cool new pets!</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1230888420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These have been bred since the 50's they're dozens of generations from "wild" and probably wouldn't even survive for long left alone any more.</p><p>Cats become equally violent after only a generation or two. The whole "cats in the cradle" thing came from the time when you didn't let barn cats in the house because they lived "wild" and would silently attack babies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These have been bred since the 50 's they 're dozens of generations from " wild " and probably would n't even survive for long left alone any more.Cats become equally violent after only a generation or two .
The whole " cats in the cradle " thing came from the time when you did n't let barn cats in the house because they lived " wild " and would silently attack babies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These have been bred since the 50's they're dozens of generations from "wild" and probably wouldn't even survive for long left alone any more.Cats become equally violent after only a generation or two.
The whole "cats in the cradle" thing came from the time when you didn't let barn cats in the house because they lived "wild" and would silently attack babies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434</id>
	<title>Evolution - NOT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261838280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added?  Or has existing information, already within the genome been lost through selective breeding.  The latter I think!  Foxes still produce after their kind and their offspring are still foxes (albeit with less genetic material than their progenitors)</p><p>People really need to learn the difference between Evolution (which is adding new material, through unintelligent, uncontrolled random accidental chance process) and Selective Breeding (which is not evolution, but rather devolution).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added ?
Or has existing information , already within the genome been lost through selective breeding .
The latter I think !
Foxes still produce after their kind and their offspring are still foxes ( albeit with less genetic material than their progenitors ) People really need to learn the difference between Evolution ( which is adding new material , through unintelligent , uncontrolled random accidental chance process ) and Selective Breeding ( which is not evolution , but rather devolution ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution - Has new genetic information been added?
Or has existing information, already within the genome been lost through selective breeding.
The latter I think!
Foxes still produce after their kind and their offspring are still foxes (albeit with less genetic material than their progenitors)People really need to learn the difference between Evolution (which is adding new material, through unintelligent, uncontrolled random accidental chance process) and Selective Breeding (which is not evolution, but rather devolution).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261837980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's nothing scaring about humans playing "god". Sure, bad things can sometimes be created like the atomic weapon, for instance, but many of those god games result in great advances for the science. Sure, it's easy to cry armageddon for every little investigation we do in science, but, if we don't play god, who will do it then? God?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing scaring about humans playing " god " .
Sure , bad things can sometimes be created like the atomic weapon , for instance , but many of those god games result in great advances for the science .
Sure , it 's easy to cry armageddon for every little investigation we do in science , but , if we do n't play god , who will do it then ?
God ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing scaring about humans playing "god".
Sure, bad things can sometimes be created like the atomic weapon, for instance, but many of those god games result in great advances for the science.
Sure, it's easy to cry armageddon for every little investigation we do in science, but, if we don't play god, who will do it then?
God?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555992</id>
	<title>It doesn't always work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261845240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We cats have tamed man for 5000 years and haven't seen any useful changes since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We cats have tamed man for 5000 years and have n't seen any useful changes since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We cats have tamed man for 5000 years and haven't seen any useful changes since then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556154</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261846680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know Chechnya wasn't part of the USSR<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know Chechnya was n't part of the USSR /sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know Chechnya wasn't part of the USSR /sarcasm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556370</id>
	<title>Not News... Just  A Very Old Story Here....</title>
	<author>alfoolio</author>
	<datestamp>1261848540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See this 2005 story from the BBC: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid\_4240000/newsid\_4245900/4245983.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid\_4240000/newsid\_4245900/4245983.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk] or this rehash of the story from 2008: <a href="http://jguk.org/2008/02/domestic-tame-pet-fox.html" title="jguk.org" rel="nofollow">http://jguk.org/2008/02/domestic-tame-pet-fox.html</a> [jguk.org] or the Wikipedia article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated\_silver\_fox" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated\_silver\_fox</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Not News, Not Necessarily for Nerds, Nothing We Need.</p><p>Move along, nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See this 2005 story from the BBC : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid \ _4240000/newsid \ _4245900/4245983.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] or this rehash of the story from 2008 : http : //jguk.org/2008/02/domestic-tame-pet-fox.html [ jguk.org ] or the Wikipedia article : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated \ _silver \ _fox [ wikipedia.org ] .Not News , Not Necessarily for Nerds , Nothing We Need.Move along , nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See this 2005 story from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid\_4240000/newsid\_4245900/4245983.stm [bbc.co.uk] or this rehash of the story from 2008: http://jguk.org/2008/02/domestic-tame-pet-fox.html [jguk.org] or the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated\_silver\_fox [wikipedia.org].Not News, Not Necessarily for Nerds, Nothing We Need.Move along, nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261847340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale</p></div><p>I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started. </p></div><p> <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/" title="iraqbodycount.org" rel="nofollow">Documented body count of civilians</a> [iraqbodycount.org]: Around a hundred thousand.</p><p>But you, you only count enlisted US military personnel. You don't even count the contractors... you disgust me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scaleI 've been to Hiroshima : You 're full of shit.look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started .
Documented body count of civilians [ iraqbodycount.org ] : Around a hundred thousand.But you , you only count enlisted US military personnel .
You do n't even count the contractors... you disgust me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scaleI've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started.
Documented body count of civilians [iraqbodycount.org]: Around a hundred thousand.But you, you only count enlisted US military personnel.
You don't even count the contractors... you disgust me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556140</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1261846560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only one who noticed that when lighter skinned people are frightened they squeal like little girls while darker skinned people tend to lash out often striking whatever it is that caused a fearful reaction? Are there exceptions to these patterns?</p></div><p>This is what is called "observation bias". Observations that confirm your expectations and biases are remembered while the observations that don't confirm your expectations and biases are discounted as "exceptions to these patterns". Simply put, another explanation for these differences in reactions (assuming they exist in the first place) is cultural. And even a century ago, the "lighter skinned people" behaved more physically aggressive than they do now.<br> <br>

As an aside, there's nothing about humans that is fundamentally different from foxes in terms of how genetics or biology works. So yes, you probably can breed a variety of behaviors including "tameness" into humans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who noticed that when lighter skinned people are frightened they squeal like little girls while darker skinned people tend to lash out often striking whatever it is that caused a fearful reaction ?
Are there exceptions to these patterns ? This is what is called " observation bias " .
Observations that confirm your expectations and biases are remembered while the observations that do n't confirm your expectations and biases are discounted as " exceptions to these patterns " .
Simply put , another explanation for these differences in reactions ( assuming they exist in the first place ) is cultural .
And even a century ago , the " lighter skinned people " behaved more physically aggressive than they do now .
As an aside , there 's nothing about humans that is fundamentally different from foxes in terms of how genetics or biology works .
So yes , you probably can breed a variety of behaviors including " tameness " into humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who noticed that when lighter skinned people are frightened they squeal like little girls while darker skinned people tend to lash out often striking whatever it is that caused a fearful reaction?
Are there exceptions to these patterns?This is what is called "observation bias".
Observations that confirm your expectations and biases are remembered while the observations that don't confirm your expectations and biases are discounted as "exceptions to these patterns".
Simply put, another explanation for these differences in reactions (assuming they exist in the first place) is cultural.
And even a century ago, the "lighter skinned people" behaved more physically aggressive than they do now.
As an aside, there's nothing about humans that is fundamentally different from foxes in terms of how genetics or biology works.
So yes, you probably can breed a variety of behaviors including "tameness" into humans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557200</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261855800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oxygen sucks. it causes nothing but pain and misery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oxygen sucks .
it causes nothing but pain and misery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oxygen sucks.
it causes nothing but pain and misery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</id>
	<title>Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261838460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I read through the article, blue eyes, fair skin and hair were as indicated as behavior.  Correlation and causation discussion aside, I can't help but draw some parallels in human society.</p><p>I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people.  Darker skinned people are viewed as stronger, more healthy while lighter skinned people are viewed as weaker, more sickly.  I can't say where the facts are in all of this, but the perception is pretty clear.</p><p>And dare I mention the "practical jokes" videos out there all over youtube and similar sites?  Am I the only one who noticed that when lighter skinned people are frightened they squeal like little girls while darker skinned people tend to lash out often striking whatever it is that caused a fearful reaction?  Are there exceptions to these patterns?  Certainly.</p><p>And in the articles, it was by selective breeding with these patterns in mind, that these new foxes and rats were created.</p><p>I know some people are immediately offended when parallels are drawn between humans and other animals (hell, just by saying "other animals" I am probably making some people angry) but even the most simple observations make some conclusions seem quite obvious to draw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I read through the article , blue eyes , fair skin and hair were as indicated as behavior .
Correlation and causation discussion aside , I ca n't help but draw some parallels in human society.I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism , but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people .
Darker skinned people are viewed as stronger , more healthy while lighter skinned people are viewed as weaker , more sickly .
I ca n't say where the facts are in all of this , but the perception is pretty clear.And dare I mention the " practical jokes " videos out there all over youtube and similar sites ?
Am I the only one who noticed that when lighter skinned people are frightened they squeal like little girls while darker skinned people tend to lash out often striking whatever it is that caused a fearful reaction ?
Are there exceptions to these patterns ?
Certainly.And in the articles , it was by selective breeding with these patterns in mind , that these new foxes and rats were created.I know some people are immediately offended when parallels are drawn between humans and other animals ( hell , just by saying " other animals " I am probably making some people angry ) but even the most simple observations make some conclusions seem quite obvious to draw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I read through the article, blue eyes, fair skin and hair were as indicated as behavior.
Correlation and causation discussion aside, I can't help but draw some parallels in human society.I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people.
Darker skinned people are viewed as stronger, more healthy while lighter skinned people are viewed as weaker, more sickly.
I can't say where the facts are in all of this, but the perception is pretty clear.And dare I mention the "practical jokes" videos out there all over youtube and similar sites?
Am I the only one who noticed that when lighter skinned people are frightened they squeal like little girls while darker skinned people tend to lash out often striking whatever it is that caused a fearful reaction?
Are there exceptions to these patterns?
Certainly.And in the articles, it was by selective breeding with these patterns in mind, that these new foxes and rats were created.I know some people are immediately offended when parallels are drawn between humans and other animals (hell, just by saying "other animals" I am probably making some people angry) but even the most simple observations make some conclusions seem quite obvious to draw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559038</id>
	<title>Re:Meat sucks, leather sucks</title>
	<author>dafing</author>
	<datestamp>1261827300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>glad to meet another Vegan on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>glad to meet another Vegan on / .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>glad to meet another Vegan on /.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261857060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.</p></div><p>Let's look at the facts: people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day. Not only that, you can have a picnic at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground\_zero#Hiroshima\_and\_Nagasaki" title="wikipedia.org">Ground Zero</a> [wikipedia.org]. So you're completely full of shit and have probably never been to Hiroshima in the first place.</p><p>Secondly, the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2. You want to compare civilian deaths? The numbers at IraqBodyCount.org are quite suspect, but let's say there were 500,000 civilian deaths just for argument's sake. There were over 100,000,000 civilian deaths in WW2 and almost 3,000,000 deaths in Korea. The numbers in Iraq just don't compare to previous wars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been to Hiroshima : You 're full of shit.Let 's look at the facts : people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day .
Not only that , you can have a picnic at Ground Zero [ wikipedia.org ] .
So you 're completely full of shit and have probably never been to Hiroshima in the first place.Secondly , the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2 .
You want to compare civilian deaths ?
The numbers at IraqBodyCount.org are quite suspect , but let 's say there were 500,000 civilian deaths just for argument 's sake .
There were over 100,000,000 civilian deaths in WW2 and almost 3,000,000 deaths in Korea .
The numbers in Iraq just do n't compare to previous wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.Let's look at the facts: people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day.
Not only that, you can have a picnic at Ground Zero [wikipedia.org].
So you're completely full of shit and have probably never been to Hiroshima in the first place.Secondly, the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2.
You want to compare civilian deaths?
The numbers at IraqBodyCount.org are quite suspect, but let's say there were 500,000 civilian deaths just for argument's sake.
There were over 100,000,000 civilian deaths in WW2 and almost 3,000,000 deaths in Korea.
The numbers in Iraq just don't compare to previous wars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557316</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1261856640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Inhumane harvesting of</i> [f]ur sucks. There's nothing wrong with harvesting the fur from an animal, as long as you treat the animal with kindness and respect while it's alive. Just because we're going to eat the animal or use its skin after we've killed it doesn't justify wanton and cruel behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inhumane harvesting of [ f ] ur sucks .
There 's nothing wrong with harvesting the fur from an animal , as long as you treat the animal with kindness and respect while it 's alive .
Just because we 're going to eat the animal or use its skin after we 've killed it does n't justify wanton and cruel behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inhumane harvesting of [f]ur sucks.
There's nothing wrong with harvesting the fur from an animal, as long as you treat the animal with kindness and respect while it's alive.
Just because we're going to eat the animal or use its skin after we've killed it doesn't justify wanton and cruel behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559816</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Harinezumi</author>
	<datestamp>1261835760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't seen WW3. You're full of shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen WW3 .
You 're full of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen WW3.
You're full of shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555454</id>
	<title>A Marine's Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261838700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>There are two things Marines are always taught</em> </p><p> <em>1)To keep your priorities in order</em> </p><p> <em>2)Know when to act without hesitation</em> </p><p> <em>An atheist professor was teaching a college class and he told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God.</em> </p><p> <em>He said, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"</em> </p><p> <em>Ten minutes went by.</em> </p><p> <em>The professor kept taunting God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."</em> </p><p> <em>He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just released from active duty, and newly registered in the class, walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from his platform.</em> </p><p> <em>The professor struggled up, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"</em> </p><p> <em>The Marine replied, <b>"God was busy, so He sent me."</b> </em> </p><p> <tt>Unfortunately for the Marine, God didn't give a shit if the professor pressed charges or not, so when the police came to arrest him no force in heaven or Earth interceded. He was processed and put in a cell. While in the cell, he met an atheist hobo who claimed there was no God, so he beat that guy up too. over 9000 other inmates attempted to haul him off the hobo, so he beat them up as well. One of them suffered severe blunt force trauma and died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. His bailed was not made and he waited in prison until the day of his trial.</tt> </p><p> <tt>Because of this, the marine was found guilty of four counts of aggravated assault and one count of 2nd degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years time served in state penitentiary, with parole opportunities after 7. Unfortunately, the judge was a well known, avowed atheist so the marine felt compelled to give him a piece of God's mind. The marine leaped onto the defense table and, using his scheming Jew lawyer as a lawn dart, struck the judge in the face. Parole opportunities were revoked.</tt> </p><p> <tt>While in jail the marine found himself very busy fighting anyone who showed the slightest lack of faith in God. Unfortunately, one afternoon in the sixth year of his incarceration, God instructed him to pick a fight with a particularly large man of Hispanic descent and, although he prevailed in the initial conflict, the 27 Latin Kings members who fell upon him following his victory quickly delivered blows sufficient to render him incapacitated.</tt> </p><p> <tt>Because of the severity of his injuries, he was given a bed at the prison hospital. While there, the prison psychiatrist conducted extensive interviews, ultimately determining that the marine was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and late onset schizophrenia. He was immediately put on a extensive array of powerful anti psychotics and anti depressants; all of which he secretly was not taking, because God had told him the medication was from the devil and was being used by heretic Muslims and atheists to sever his ties to the Lord, his God. His condition continued to worsen and he spent more and more time locked in solitary confinement for his disruptive behavior. While there he would cry and scream and pray to the lord for guidance. In turn the lord would fill his eyes with visions of ultimate triumph over evil; the streets of pagan cities, clotted with the thick heart blood of the nonbelievers; abortion clinics fat with flies and the rotting flesh of the defilers; the righteous dancing in the vaulted crypt of the world as the sky turned to red ash and caught fire. He wept with joy as the profound visions filled his soul; the nourishing screams of the nonbelievers as they were dragged down into perdition, filled his ears and echoed in his head like beautiful music.</tt> </p><p> <tt>Unable to attend church in solitary, the marine began to despair. God then gave him the power to transubstantiate anything, so he began tearing great chunks of his own flesh from his body, at which point he would transform the</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two things Marines are always taught 1 ) To keep your priorities in order 2 ) Know when to act without hesitation An atheist professor was teaching a college class and he told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God .
He said , " God , if you are real , then I want you to knock me off this platform .
I 'll give you 15 minutes !
" Ten minutes went by .
The professor kept taunting God , saying , " Here I am , God .
I 'm still waiting .
" He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just released from active duty , and newly registered in the class , walked up to the professor , hit him full force in the face , and sent him flying from his platform .
The professor struggled up , obviously shaken and yelled , " What 's the matter with you ?
Why did you do that ?
" The Marine replied , " God was busy , so He sent me .
" Unfortunately for the Marine , God did n't give a shit if the professor pressed charges or not , so when the police came to arrest him no force in heaven or Earth interceded .
He was processed and put in a cell .
While in the cell , he met an atheist hobo who claimed there was no God , so he beat that guy up too .
over 9000 other inmates attempted to haul him off the hobo , so he beat them up as well .
One of them suffered severe blunt force trauma and died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital .
His bailed was not made and he waited in prison until the day of his trial .
Because of this , the marine was found guilty of four counts of aggravated assault and one count of 2nd degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years time served in state penitentiary , with parole opportunities after 7 .
Unfortunately , the judge was a well known , avowed atheist so the marine felt compelled to give him a piece of God 's mind .
The marine leaped onto the defense table and , using his scheming Jew lawyer as a lawn dart , struck the judge in the face .
Parole opportunities were revoked .
While in jail the marine found himself very busy fighting anyone who showed the slightest lack of faith in God .
Unfortunately , one afternoon in the sixth year of his incarceration , God instructed him to pick a fight with a particularly large man of Hispanic descent and , although he prevailed in the initial conflict , the 27 Latin Kings members who fell upon him following his victory quickly delivered blows sufficient to render him incapacitated .
Because of the severity of his injuries , he was given a bed at the prison hospital .
While there , the prison psychiatrist conducted extensive interviews , ultimately determining that the marine was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and late onset schizophrenia .
He was immediately put on a extensive array of powerful anti psychotics and anti depressants ; all of which he secretly was not taking , because God had told him the medication was from the devil and was being used by heretic Muslims and atheists to sever his ties to the Lord , his God .
His condition continued to worsen and he spent more and more time locked in solitary confinement for his disruptive behavior .
While there he would cry and scream and pray to the lord for guidance .
In turn the lord would fill his eyes with visions of ultimate triumph over evil ; the streets of pagan cities , clotted with the thick heart blood of the nonbelievers ; abortion clinics fat with flies and the rotting flesh of the defilers ; the righteous dancing in the vaulted crypt of the world as the sky turned to red ash and caught fire .
He wept with joy as the profound visions filled his soul ; the nourishing screams of the nonbelievers as they were dragged down into perdition , filled his ears and echoed in his head like beautiful music .
Unable to attend church in solitary , the marine began to despair .
God then gave him the power to transubstantiate anything , so he began tearing great chunks of his own flesh from his body , at which point he would transform the</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There are two things Marines are always taught  1)To keep your priorities in order  2)Know when to act without hesitation  An atheist professor was teaching a college class and he told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God.
He said, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform.
I'll give you 15 minutes!
"  Ten minutes went by.
The professor kept taunting God, saying, "Here I am, God.
I'm still waiting.
"  He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just released from active duty, and newly registered in the class, walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from his platform.
The professor struggled up, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you?
Why did you do that?
"  The Marine replied, "God was busy, so He sent me.
"   Unfortunately for the Marine, God didn't give a shit if the professor pressed charges or not, so when the police came to arrest him no force in heaven or Earth interceded.
He was processed and put in a cell.
While in the cell, he met an atheist hobo who claimed there was no God, so he beat that guy up too.
over 9000 other inmates attempted to haul him off the hobo, so he beat them up as well.
One of them suffered severe blunt force trauma and died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.
His bailed was not made and he waited in prison until the day of his trial.
Because of this, the marine was found guilty of four counts of aggravated assault and one count of 2nd degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years time served in state penitentiary, with parole opportunities after 7.
Unfortunately, the judge was a well known, avowed atheist so the marine felt compelled to give him a piece of God's mind.
The marine leaped onto the defense table and, using his scheming Jew lawyer as a lawn dart, struck the judge in the face.
Parole opportunities were revoked.
While in jail the marine found himself very busy fighting anyone who showed the slightest lack of faith in God.
Unfortunately, one afternoon in the sixth year of his incarceration, God instructed him to pick a fight with a particularly large man of Hispanic descent and, although he prevailed in the initial conflict, the 27 Latin Kings members who fell upon him following his victory quickly delivered blows sufficient to render him incapacitated.
Because of the severity of his injuries, he was given a bed at the prison hospital.
While there, the prison psychiatrist conducted extensive interviews, ultimately determining that the marine was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and late onset schizophrenia.
He was immediately put on a extensive array of powerful anti psychotics and anti depressants; all of which he secretly was not taking, because God had told him the medication was from the devil and was being used by heretic Muslims and atheists to sever his ties to the Lord, his God.
His condition continued to worsen and he spent more and more time locked in solitary confinement for his disruptive behavior.
While there he would cry and scream and pray to the lord for guidance.
In turn the lord would fill his eyes with visions of ultimate triumph over evil; the streets of pagan cities, clotted with the thick heart blood of the nonbelievers; abortion clinics fat with flies and the rotting flesh of the defilers; the righteous dancing in the vaulted crypt of the world as the sky turned to red ash and caught fire.
He wept with joy as the profound visions filled his soul; the nourishing screams of the nonbelievers as they were dragged down into perdition, filled his ears and echoed in his head like beautiful music.
Unable to attend church in solitary, the marine began to despair.
God then gave him the power to transubstantiate anything, so he began tearing great chunks of his own flesh from his body, at which point he would transform the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557416</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>BasilBrush</author>
	<datestamp>1261857480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh you creationists are so determinedly ignorant.</p><blockquote><div><p>Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance, such as developing an entirely different organ for example in a very gradual way.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It's perfectly clear how organs can result from evolution in a gradual series of steps.  Here Richard Dawkins explains exactly for the evolution of the eyeball in so simple a way a way a child could understand. You'd benefit from watching the whole thing, but if you want to cut to the chase, the eye section starts at about 23 minutes in.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh you creationists are so determinedly ignorant.Secondly , it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance , such as developing an entirely different organ for example in a very gradual way .
It 's perfectly clear how organs can result from evolution in a gradual series of steps .
Here Richard Dawkins explains exactly for the evolution of the eyeball in so simple a way a way a child could understand .
You 'd benefit from watching the whole thing , but if you want to cut to the chase , the eye section starts at about 23 minutes in.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = YT1vXXMsYak [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh you creationists are so determinedly ignorant.Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance, such as developing an entirely different organ for example in a very gradual way.
It's perfectly clear how organs can result from evolution in a gradual series of steps.
Here Richard Dawkins explains exactly for the evolution of the eyeball in so simple a way a way a child could understand.
You'd benefit from watching the whole thing, but if you want to cut to the chase, the eye section starts at about 23 minutes in.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30561008</id>
	<title>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261853580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556700</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261851300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://www.iviewtube.com/videos/110453/tiger-woods-snl-skit-saturday-night-live-(blake-lively)" title="iviewtube.com">Tiger Woods would disagree</a> [iviewtube.com].</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism , but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people Tiger Woods would disagree [ iviewtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people Tiger Woods would disagree [iviewtube.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557720</id>
	<title>Re:Evolutionary Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261860120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong</i> <br>
Right, it would be more precise to say that it's evidence in support of some aspects of evolutionary theory.</p><p>

<i>people get confused about certain things like, a species ability to adapt to its environment, is that it fails to explain how a completely different species evolves</i> <br>
When things adapt in enough different ways they become something completely different.</p><p>

<i>Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory</i> <br>
No, that's exactly what evolutionary theory predicts - a spectrum of reproductive relationships between populations ranging from "easily interbreeds" through "can interbreed" to "can't interbreed".</p><p>

<i>it doesn't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species, not by interbreeding between "species".</i> <br>
No evolutionary biologists are saying that hybridization can't happen, or that it doesn't affect evolution. Period.</p><p>

<i>Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance</i> <br>
Yes it is - things start simple, and get more complex over time.  And it isn't "by random chance", but by non-random selection between randomly generated alternatives.</p><p>

<i>How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents.</i> <br>
No, it isn't.  And you should know there are only about 23,000 proteins in humans.</p><p>

<i>Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation</i> <br>
The only way someone could believe something so completely wrong is to be utterly ignorant of thermodynamics.</p><p>

<i>I don't believe in the "religion" of evolutionary theory</i> <br>
That's because there is no "religion" involved, and because someone's been feeding you bad information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit , strong Right , it would be more precise to say that it 's evidence in support of some aspects of evolutionary theory .
people get confused about certain things like , a species ability to adapt to its environment , is that it fails to explain how a completely different species evolves When things adapt in enough different ways they become something completely different .
Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory No , that 's exactly what evolutionary theory predicts - a spectrum of reproductive relationships between populations ranging from " easily interbreeds " through " can interbreed " to " ca n't interbreed " .
it does n't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species , not by interbreeding between " species " .
No evolutionary biologists are saying that hybridization ca n't happen , or that it does n't affect evolution .
Period . Secondly , it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance Yes it is - things start simple , and get more complex over time .
And it is n't " by random chance " , but by non-random selection between randomly generated alternatives .
How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents .
No , it is n't .
And you should know there are only about 23,000 proteins in humans .
Third and finally , there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation The only way someone could believe something so completely wrong is to be utterly ignorant of thermodynamics .
I do n't believe in the " religion " of evolutionary theory That 's because there is no " religion " involved , and because someone 's been feeding you bad information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong 
Right, it would be more precise to say that it's evidence in support of some aspects of evolutionary theory.
people get confused about certain things like, a species ability to adapt to its environment, is that it fails to explain how a completely different species evolves 
When things adapt in enough different ways they become something completely different.
Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory 
No, that's exactly what evolutionary theory predicts - a spectrum of reproductive relationships between populations ranging from "easily interbreeds" through "can interbreed" to "can't interbreed".
it doesn't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species, not by interbreeding between "species".
No evolutionary biologists are saying that hybridization can't happen, or that it doesn't affect evolution.
Period.

Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance 
Yes it is - things start simple, and get more complex over time.
And it isn't "by random chance", but by non-random selection between randomly generated alternatives.
How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents.
No, it isn't.
And you should know there are only about 23,000 proteins in humans.
Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation 
The only way someone could believe something so completely wrong is to be utterly ignorant of thermodynamics.
I don't believe in the "religion" of evolutionary theory 
That's because there is no "religion" involved, and because someone's been feeding you bad information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30588602</id>
	<title>Clever vs Bright vs Smart  (Re: Human Evolution)</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1262090280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Intelligence" is quite a crude concept.
<p>
I'd distinguish between at least three major human indicator traits, just to start with: cleverness, brightness and smartness (and that's before you start specifying other traits like artistic ability, ability to make inspired "leaps", aesthetic sense, creativity, empathic ability, and so on).
</p><p>
The rule of thumb is: if you think that "intelligence" is important, but you don't know the difference between "clever" and "bright", then you're probably not that bright (although you may well be clever).
</p><p>
"Clever but not bright" people tend to fixate on rigid systems of measurable quantities, rigid official definitions and correct solutions. They're the intellectual equivalent of racehorses - put them on a track with a defined goal and they'll beat all-comers, but put them out in the wider world to problem-solve, and they're liable to starve to death when something unexpected happens.
</p><p>
The subject of IQ tends to attract people who are quite driven, and perhaps quite clever, but often not all that bright. Bright people would tend to query the basic validity of the IQ metrics, realise the problems, and decide that since the field was so dodgy they'd rather go into some other, more respectable branch of science. So as a result, a disproportionate amount of work on intelligence is junk science, because by default, it's usually done by people who are just that little bit dim, and either don't see the problems or don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Intelligence " is quite a crude concept .
I 'd distinguish between at least three major human indicator traits , just to start with : cleverness , brightness and smartness ( and that 's before you start specifying other traits like artistic ability , ability to make inspired " leaps " , aesthetic sense , creativity , empathic ability , and so on ) .
The rule of thumb is : if you think that " intelligence " is important , but you do n't know the difference between " clever " and " bright " , then you 're probably not that bright ( although you may well be clever ) .
" Clever but not bright " people tend to fixate on rigid systems of measurable quantities , rigid official definitions and correct solutions .
They 're the intellectual equivalent of racehorses - put them on a track with a defined goal and they 'll beat all-comers , but put them out in the wider world to problem-solve , and they 're liable to starve to death when something unexpected happens .
The subject of IQ tends to attract people who are quite driven , and perhaps quite clever , but often not all that bright .
Bright people would tend to query the basic validity of the IQ metrics , realise the problems , and decide that since the field was so dodgy they 'd rather go into some other , more respectable branch of science .
So as a result , a disproportionate amount of work on intelligence is junk science , because by default , it 's usually done by people who are just that little bit dim , and either do n't see the problems or do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Intelligence" is quite a crude concept.
I'd distinguish between at least three major human indicator traits, just to start with: cleverness, brightness and smartness (and that's before you start specifying other traits like artistic ability, ability to make inspired "leaps", aesthetic sense, creativity, empathic ability, and so on).
The rule of thumb is: if you think that "intelligence" is important, but you don't know the difference between "clever" and "bright", then you're probably not that bright (although you may well be clever).
"Clever but not bright" people tend to fixate on rigid systems of measurable quantities, rigid official definitions and correct solutions.
They're the intellectual equivalent of racehorses - put them on a track with a defined goal and they'll beat all-comers, but put them out in the wider world to problem-solve, and they're liable to starve to death when something unexpected happens.
The subject of IQ tends to attract people who are quite driven, and perhaps quite clever, but often not all that bright.
Bright people would tend to query the basic validity of the IQ metrics, realise the problems, and decide that since the field was so dodgy they'd rather go into some other, more respectable branch of science.
So as a result, a disproportionate amount of work on intelligence is junk science, because by default, it's usually done by people who are just that little bit dim, and either don't see the problems or don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555882</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the master race discussion</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1261844220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people.</p></div><p>Yup, you're racist alright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people.Yup , you 're racist alright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people.Yup, you're racist alright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560316</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261843260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Soviets actually had long history in experimenting modifying genes and DNA of animals, and in late years this was even minorly expanded to humans. They were really cautious about that, but did experience on things like changing human behavior in brains and trying to give them 'better' abilities (as in from military point of view). Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies. The most interesting part is that via some limited lobotomy, they managed to remove some feeling of fear and feelings from the subjects. There's a few <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrJ8ewj\_KYw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">videos</a> [youtube.com] out of those experiences, this one is taken near Black Sea in 1986 in area whats currently Ukraine.</p><p>Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god. Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.</p></div><p>Well you never know. Maybe one of these days they'll be able to produce a domesticated nigger. Or at least one that isn't a menace to civilized society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soviets actually had long history in experimenting modifying genes and DNA of animals , and in late years this was even minorly expanded to humans .
They were really cautious about that , but did experience on things like changing human behavior in brains and trying to give them 'better ' abilities ( as in from military point of view ) .
Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy , while learning military tactics and strategies .
The most interesting part is that via some limited lobotomy , they managed to remove some feeling of fear and feelings from the subjects .
There 's a few videos [ youtube.com ] out of those experiences , this one is taken near Black Sea in 1986 in area whats currently Ukraine.Never the less , it 's always scary when humans play god .
Something is going to happen eventually , so should be really careful about it.Well you never know .
Maybe one of these days they 'll be able to produce a domesticated nigger .
Or at least one that is n't a menace to civilized society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soviets actually had long history in experimenting modifying genes and DNA of animals, and in late years this was even minorly expanded to humans.
They were really cautious about that, but did experience on things like changing human behavior in brains and trying to give them 'better' abilities (as in from military point of view).
Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies.
The most interesting part is that via some limited lobotomy, they managed to remove some feeling of fear and feelings from the subjects.
There's a few videos [youtube.com] out of those experiences, this one is taken near Black Sea in 1986 in area whats currently Ukraine.Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god.
Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.Well you never know.
Maybe one of these days they'll be able to produce a domesticated nigger.
Or at least one that isn't a menace to civilized society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557606</id>
	<title>Re:Fur sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261859340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My fur hat, made from fox that I hunted down and killed personally, caused less death than your cotton jacket. Your cotton jacket had to be farmed, where hundreds of voles, mice, rabbits and so on got tilled up and killed. It had to be shipped here, where bugs and birds got splattered on truck windows. And let's not even go into the energy it took to make that jacket.<br> <br>I've killed one animal, and I did it myself. I was respectful, as it died. I hunt in a sustainable way. Every piece of cotton you own marks the death of many animals living in our fields and headgerows. Don't tell me I'm the monster for owning a fox hat in the arctic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My fur hat , made from fox that I hunted down and killed personally , caused less death than your cotton jacket .
Your cotton jacket had to be farmed , where hundreds of voles , mice , rabbits and so on got tilled up and killed .
It had to be shipped here , where bugs and birds got splattered on truck windows .
And let 's not even go into the energy it took to make that jacket .
I 've killed one animal , and I did it myself .
I was respectful , as it died .
I hunt in a sustainable way .
Every piece of cotton you own marks the death of many animals living in our fields and headgerows .
Do n't tell me I 'm the monster for owning a fox hat in the arctic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My fur hat, made from fox that I hunted down and killed personally, caused less death than your cotton jacket.
Your cotton jacket had to be farmed, where hundreds of voles, mice, rabbits and so on got tilled up and killed.
It had to be shipped here, where bugs and birds got splattered on truck windows.
And let's not even go into the energy it took to make that jacket.
I've killed one animal, and I did it myself.
I was respectful, as it died.
I hunt in a sustainable way.
Every piece of cotton you own marks the death of many animals living in our fields and headgerows.
Don't tell me I'm the monster for owning a fox hat in the arctic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557754</id>
	<title>Re:Lessons for Human Evolution</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1261860480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution.</p> </div><p>So we'll get white spots on our foreheads, our ears will get droopy, our snouts shorter and wider, and our tails will curl up?<br>
great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution .
So we 'll get white spots on our foreheads , our ears will get droopy , our snouts shorter and wider , and our tails will curl up ?
great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should not shy away from the obvious implications for human evolution.
So we'll get white spots on our foreheads, our ears will get droopy, our snouts shorter and wider, and our tails will curl up?
great.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557662</id>
	<title>Re:Domestication</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1261859640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've bred Aurochs, and Dogs, and Guinea Pigs. When I read about these a few years ago, I thought maybe I would adopt one, as they seem a little cooler than Felix domesticus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've bred Aurochs , and Dogs , and Guinea Pigs .
When I read about these a few years ago , I thought maybe I would adopt one , as they seem a little cooler than Felix domesticus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've bred Aurochs, and Dogs, and Guinea Pigs.
When I read about these a few years ago, I thought maybe I would adopt one, as they seem a little cooler than Felix domesticus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555574</id>
	<title>News?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261840740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long-discussed and documented - is this news ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long-discussed and documented - is this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long-discussed and documented - is this news ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30583354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30565696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30577816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30650406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30562822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30562596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30561008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30588602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30561296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0328244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30620558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30562822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30650406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556236
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559662
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559030
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557370
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558348
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558356
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558864
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559004
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559816
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564056
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558048
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30562596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30561008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30561296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30588602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30583354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30577816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560766
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30563388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30565696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30620558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0328244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30555838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30560010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30564444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30556536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30559142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30557316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0328244.30558314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
