<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_28_1325213</id>
	<title>Anti-Technology Themes in James Cameron's <em>Avatar</em></title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262010180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ThousandStars writes <i>"'<a href="http://jseliger.com/2009/12/27/thoughts-on-james-camerons-avatar">The anti-technological aspect [in James Cameron's <em>Avatar</em>]</a> is strange because the movie is among most technically sophisticated ever: it uses a crazy 2D and 3D camera, harnesses the most advanced computer animation techniques imaginable, and has apparently improved the state-of-the-art when it comes to cinema. But <em>Avatar&rsquo;s</em> story argues that technology is bad. Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.' The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie, and why are we drawn to it? Part of the answer lies in Neal Stephenson's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17stephenson.html">Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ThousandStars writes " 'The anti-technological aspect [ in James Cameron 's Avatar ] is strange because the movie is among most technically sophisticated ever : it uses a crazy 2D and 3D camera , harnesses the most advanced computer animation techniques imaginable , and has apparently improved the state-of-the-art when it comes to cinema .
But Avatar    s story argues that technology is bad .
Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources .
' The question is two-fold : why have a technically sophisticated , anti-technical movie , and why are we drawn to it ?
Part of the answer lies in Neal Stephenson 's Turn On , Tune In , Veg Out .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ThousandStars writes "'The anti-technological aspect [in James Cameron's Avatar] is strange because the movie is among most technically sophisticated ever: it uses a crazy 2D and 3D camera, harnesses the most advanced computer animation techniques imaginable, and has apparently improved the state-of-the-art when it comes to cinema.
But Avatar’s story argues that technology is bad.
Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.
' The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie, and why are we drawn to it?
Part of the answer lies in Neal Stephenson's Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570966</id>
	<title>James Cameron is an interesting character</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262015220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This, in a nutshell, is why I had originally figured I&rsquo;d either hate Avatar or feel like I was giving money to a wacko if I went to see it:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Avatar&rsquo;s story argues that technology is bad. Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.</p></div><p>It sounds like a description of the typical drivel you get from the anti-capitalism, anti-technology movement.</p><p>However after skimming his Wikipedia article, I&rsquo;m intrigued to see that he also directed Terminator, T2, and Titanic... all of which deal similarly with technology, its use and misuse, and the sometimes-blind faith that people place in it. While I don&rsquo;t know how far he went with this theme in his newest movie, I&rsquo;m also more inclined to look at it as an illustration of technology misused and horribly gone wrong rather than just the broad-ended bashing of all technology that it&rsquo;s been described as in reviews. I think I&rsquo;ll definitely plan on seeing Avatar at some point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This , in a nutshell , is why I had originally figured I    d either hate Avatar or feel like I was giving money to a wacko if I went to see it : Avatar    s story argues that technology is bad .
Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.It sounds like a description of the typical drivel you get from the anti-capitalism , anti-technology movement.However after skimming his Wikipedia article , I    m intrigued to see that he also directed Terminator , T2 , and Titanic... all of which deal similarly with technology , its use and misuse , and the sometimes-blind faith that people place in it .
While I don    t know how far he went with this theme in his newest movie , I    m also more inclined to look at it as an illustration of technology misused and horribly gone wrong rather than just the broad-ended bashing of all technology that it    s been described as in reviews .
I think I    ll definitely plan on seeing Avatar at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This, in a nutshell, is why I had originally figured I’d either hate Avatar or feel like I was giving money to a wacko if I went to see it:Avatar’s story argues that technology is bad.
Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.It sounds like a description of the typical drivel you get from the anti-capitalism, anti-technology movement.However after skimming his Wikipedia article, I’m intrigued to see that he also directed Terminator, T2, and Titanic... all of which deal similarly with technology, its use and misuse, and the sometimes-blind faith that people place in it.
While I don’t know how far he went with this theme in his newest movie, I’m also more inclined to look at it as an illustration of technology misused and horribly gone wrong rather than just the broad-ended bashing of all technology that it’s been described as in reviews.
I think I’ll definitely plan on seeing Avatar at some point.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574526</id>
	<title>Re:I got something different from that movie.</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262032020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.</i> Naw, just better sex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us .
Naw , just better sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.
Naw, just better sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572032</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1262020680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"post-colonial" as in "still going on"? The US Govt spends more on "private security contractors" in Iraq and Afghanistan than it does on regular military.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" post-colonial " as in " still going on " ?
The US Govt spends more on " private security contractors " in Iraq and Afghanistan than it does on regular military .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"post-colonial" as in "still going on"?
The US Govt spends more on "private security contractors" in Iraq and Afghanistan than it does on regular military.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574434</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1262031540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a kid, I "slummed" an entire summer with homeless fisherman on a local pier. For the most part I learned how "having" was not a replacement for the ability to orient oneself with one's environment. I learned how to make a bait-catcher rig, spot and make my own bait, keep my bait alive, and make enough money on the fish I caught to fish the next day. I also learned that if you want to fish with bait, you have to make your own bait. These were all life-lessons I have never read in a book, and have since proved invaluable.
<br>
<br>
It's sometimes shocking to me how much of life is lost via the conveniences of modern technology, not to mention the loss of character that results from lack of experience.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a kid , I " slummed " an entire summer with homeless fisherman on a local pier .
For the most part I learned how " having " was not a replacement for the ability to orient oneself with one 's environment .
I learned how to make a bait-catcher rig , spot and make my own bait , keep my bait alive , and make enough money on the fish I caught to fish the next day .
I also learned that if you want to fish with bait , you have to make your own bait .
These were all life-lessons I have never read in a book , and have since proved invaluable .
It 's sometimes shocking to me how much of life is lost via the conveniences of modern technology , not to mention the loss of character that results from lack of experience .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a kid, I "slummed" an entire summer with homeless fisherman on a local pier.
For the most part I learned how "having" was not a replacement for the ability to orient oneself with one's environment.
I learned how to make a bait-catcher rig, spot and make my own bait, keep my bait alive, and make enough money on the fish I caught to fish the next day.
I also learned that if you want to fish with bait, you have to make your own bait.
These were all life-lessons I have never read in a book, and have since proved invaluable.
It's sometimes shocking to me how much of life is lost via the conveniences of modern technology, not to mention the loss of character that results from lack of experience.
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570812</id>
	<title>I believe</title>
	<author>gizmo2199</author>
	<datestamp>1262014440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that Luke uses 'The Force' and turns off the computer.</p><p>Was Lucas trying to say something with that, I wonder...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that Luke uses 'The Force ' and turns off the computer.Was Lucas trying to say something with that , I wonder.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Luke uses 'The Force' and turns off the computer.Was Lucas trying to say something with that, I wonder...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574222</id>
	<title>Encourages people to be unproductive? LOL WUT?</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1262030580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a society (like ours) that encourages people to be unproductive (living on welfare, begging on the streets, living in their parents' basements until they're 35...).</p></div><p>You're saying the same society that values and glorifies wealth above all else, <i>encourages</i> people to be unproductive because...it doesn't mean certain death? "Encourages?" Really? Maybe "Allows."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a society ( like ours ) that encourages people to be unproductive ( living on welfare , begging on the streets , living in their parents ' basements until they 're 35... ) .You 're saying the same society that values and glorifies wealth above all else , encourages people to be unproductive because...it does n't mean certain death ?
" Encourages ? " Really ?
Maybe " Allows .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a society (like ours) that encourages people to be unproductive (living on welfare, begging on the streets, living in their parents' basements until they're 35...).You're saying the same society that values and glorifies wealth above all else, encourages people to be unproductive because...it doesn't mean certain death?
"Encourages?" Really?
Maybe "Allows.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30626290</id>
	<title>Re:I got something different from that movie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230892200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, here's a dictionary definition:</p><p>"Technology refers to methods, systems, and devices which are the result of scientific knowledge being used for practical purposes."</p><p>That definition does not hold for the organic synaptic links of the Navi. That is not technology. Whether it is more advanced or not may be a different question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , here 's a dictionary definition : " Technology refers to methods , systems , and devices which are the result of scientific knowledge being used for practical purposes .
" That definition does not hold for the organic synaptic links of the Navi .
That is not technology .
Whether it is more advanced or not may be a different question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, here's a dictionary definition:"Technology refers to methods, systems, and devices which are the result of scientific knowledge being used for practical purposes.
"That definition does not hold for the organic synaptic links of the Navi.
That is not technology.
Whether it is more advanced or not may be a different question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573046</id>
	<title>"Smurfs"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262025060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you see the movie, you'll know the Na'Vi (why are they called that?) are HUGE. Like 1.5 human size. Quite interesting to portray them as larger than us, because often aliens are portrayed as weaker or smaller than humans, or like unrecognizable monsters. These are "human-like" and beautiful giants, with a physical link with the animals around them. Their physical build is much stronger and more resilient than a human, and so is the human "avatars" (the movie is worth it just to see humans walking around as Na'Vi alone).</p><p>It's a great movie. Worth a watch, especially on the screen (don't miss it).<br>It's mostly action though, and a few sentences of philosophy a few places, but mostly the pictures speaks for themselves.<br>In many ways it is unique movie, although the story is similar, there are unique aspects which keep it apart from others.</p><p>It also has its weaknesses:<br>1) It should really be 3 movies, like LOTR! The story is heavily watered-down to allow for a 2.5 hour fast-paced watch. Would be interesting with depictions of more Na'Vis than just the main character's girlfriend. To have the main character only have one teacher is unrealistic. Things like this allows for the short format, but the compression takes away depth.<br>2) Its mostly black and white. The corporate military has zero tolerance for any other solution than violence, and have no regard for a pristine planets ecosystem. We see nothing of earth's dilemma, and why they have to resort to mining out the Na'Vi planet using military force. I suspect the story behind have more dimensions to it, but the characters are very one dimensional.<br>3) Like with native americans, 90\% Na'Vis would probably succumb to death just because of contamination to human viruses and bacteria. Not a realistic depiction of clashing of civilizations (but much more exciting!)<br>4) Too much action. Would love to have more "story", more depth, more history etc. I think the story could be changed to accomodate a longer series. Really, an entire universe could unfold here, but we're given only 2.5 hours, which is too litte.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you see the movie , you 'll know the Na'Vi ( why are they called that ?
) are HUGE .
Like 1.5 human size .
Quite interesting to portray them as larger than us , because often aliens are portrayed as weaker or smaller than humans , or like unrecognizable monsters .
These are " human-like " and beautiful giants , with a physical link with the animals around them .
Their physical build is much stronger and more resilient than a human , and so is the human " avatars " ( the movie is worth it just to see humans walking around as Na'Vi alone ) .It 's a great movie .
Worth a watch , especially on the screen ( do n't miss it ) .It 's mostly action though , and a few sentences of philosophy a few places , but mostly the pictures speaks for themselves.In many ways it is unique movie , although the story is similar , there are unique aspects which keep it apart from others.It also has its weaknesses : 1 ) It should really be 3 movies , like LOTR !
The story is heavily watered-down to allow for a 2.5 hour fast-paced watch .
Would be interesting with depictions of more Na'Vis than just the main character 's girlfriend .
To have the main character only have one teacher is unrealistic .
Things like this allows for the short format , but the compression takes away depth.2 ) Its mostly black and white .
The corporate military has zero tolerance for any other solution than violence , and have no regard for a pristine planets ecosystem .
We see nothing of earth 's dilemma , and why they have to resort to mining out the Na'Vi planet using military force .
I suspect the story behind have more dimensions to it , but the characters are very one dimensional.3 ) Like with native americans , 90 \ % Na'Vis would probably succumb to death just because of contamination to human viruses and bacteria .
Not a realistic depiction of clashing of civilizations ( but much more exciting !
) 4 ) Too much action .
Would love to have more " story " , more depth , more history etc .
I think the story could be changed to accomodate a longer series .
Really , an entire universe could unfold here , but we 're given only 2.5 hours , which is too litte .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you see the movie, you'll know the Na'Vi (why are they called that?
) are HUGE.
Like 1.5 human size.
Quite interesting to portray them as larger than us, because often aliens are portrayed as weaker or smaller than humans, or like unrecognizable monsters.
These are "human-like" and beautiful giants, with a physical link with the animals around them.
Their physical build is much stronger and more resilient than a human, and so is the human "avatars" (the movie is worth it just to see humans walking around as Na'Vi alone).It's a great movie.
Worth a watch, especially on the screen (don't miss it).It's mostly action though, and a few sentences of philosophy a few places, but mostly the pictures speaks for themselves.In many ways it is unique movie, although the story is similar, there are unique aspects which keep it apart from others.It also has its weaknesses:1) It should really be 3 movies, like LOTR!
The story is heavily watered-down to allow for a 2.5 hour fast-paced watch.
Would be interesting with depictions of more Na'Vis than just the main character's girlfriend.
To have the main character only have one teacher is unrealistic.
Things like this allows for the short format, but the compression takes away depth.2) Its mostly black and white.
The corporate military has zero tolerance for any other solution than violence, and have no regard for a pristine planets ecosystem.
We see nothing of earth's dilemma, and why they have to resort to mining out the Na'Vi planet using military force.
I suspect the story behind have more dimensions to it, but the characters are very one dimensional.3) Like with native americans, 90\% Na'Vis would probably succumb to death just because of contamination to human viruses and bacteria.
Not a realistic depiction of clashing of civilizations (but much more exciting!
)4) Too much action.
Would love to have more "story", more depth, more history etc.
I think the story could be changed to accomodate a longer series.
Really, an entire universe could unfold here, but we're given only 2.5 hours, which is too litte.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572640</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>DigiWood</author>
	<datestamp>1262023380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about "race." It's about heritage.  Last I looked we were all from the HUMAN race.  What makes us distinct is our heritage, genetic or otherwise.  People make more conflicts about the color of ones skin or what they believe happens in the afterlife than most other things these days.</p><p>Slashdotters are so good at wanting the right terms used when describing "hackers." Same should apply here.  Sooner we all realize we are of one race the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about " race .
" It 's about heritage .
Last I looked we were all from the HUMAN race .
What makes us distinct is our heritage , genetic or otherwise .
People make more conflicts about the color of ones skin or what they believe happens in the afterlife than most other things these days.Slashdotters are so good at wanting the right terms used when describing " hackers .
" Same should apply here .
Sooner we all realize we are of one race the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about "race.
" It's about heritage.
Last I looked we were all from the HUMAN race.
What makes us distinct is our heritage, genetic or otherwise.
People make more conflicts about the color of ones skin or what they believe happens in the afterlife than most other things these days.Slashdotters are so good at wanting the right terms used when describing "hackers.
" Same should apply here.
Sooner we all realize we are of one race the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571514</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262018100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get what the GP is saying. People always see native ("savage") cultures as living in harmony with the world and each other, when it really is not true. Native American tribes fought many wars against each other. It's also unfair to assume that they wouldn't have destroyed their environment had they been given a chance to progress -- or that they weren't doing so already.</p><p>Bottom line is that most creatures will take the path of least resistance backing their concerns. This doesn't imply some kind of "evil" in their motives and ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get what the GP is saying .
People always see native ( " savage " ) cultures as living in harmony with the world and each other , when it really is not true .
Native American tribes fought many wars against each other .
It 's also unfair to assume that they would n't have destroyed their environment had they been given a chance to progress -- or that they were n't doing so already.Bottom line is that most creatures will take the path of least resistance backing their concerns .
This does n't imply some kind of " evil " in their motives and ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get what the GP is saying.
People always see native ("savage") cultures as living in harmony with the world and each other, when it really is not true.
Native American tribes fought many wars against each other.
It's also unfair to assume that they wouldn't have destroyed their environment had they been given a chance to progress -- or that they weren't doing so already.Bottom line is that most creatures will take the path of least resistance backing their concerns.
This doesn't imply some kind of "evil" in their motives and ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574246</id>
	<title>Anti-war, anti-greed, anti-theft, not anti-tech</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1262030700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. The original poster apparently thinks that having technology is a license to invade and kill and steal from people who have less technology. The entire last 500 years of history was lost on him, just like George Bush and about 40\% of the US population. The 2 million Iraqis America killed over the past 20 years were just sacrifices on the altar of technology, the price of having semiconductors. BULLSHIT. Europeans developed sophisticated technology first because they lived in the cushiest geography, with beasts of burden and temperate climates and an east-west axis which enabled easy sharing of agricultural innovations. They were not superior people and had no right to steal from other cultures.</p><p>Avatar is clearly anti-American, not anti-tech. Not only do you have parallels with the US war machine killing people in their own homes and stealing their resources, you have the lack of a public health care system forcing one of the characters into war in order to get his spine fixed. In an ethical society, spine-fixing is funded BEFORE warships, and the warships are used for DEFENSE. What level of technology you're at is immaterial, totally irrelevant. Ethics apply whether you're on sailing ships or space ships.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
The original poster apparently thinks that having technology is a license to invade and kill and steal from people who have less technology .
The entire last 500 years of history was lost on him , just like George Bush and about 40 \ % of the US population .
The 2 million Iraqis America killed over the past 20 years were just sacrifices on the altar of technology , the price of having semiconductors .
BULLSHIT. Europeans developed sophisticated technology first because they lived in the cushiest geography , with beasts of burden and temperate climates and an east-west axis which enabled easy sharing of agricultural innovations .
They were not superior people and had no right to steal from other cultures.Avatar is clearly anti-American , not anti-tech .
Not only do you have parallels with the US war machine killing people in their own homes and stealing their resources , you have the lack of a public health care system forcing one of the characters into war in order to get his spine fixed .
In an ethical society , spine-fixing is funded BEFORE warships , and the warships are used for DEFENSE .
What level of technology you 're at is immaterial , totally irrelevant .
Ethics apply whether you 're on sailing ships or space ships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
The original poster apparently thinks that having technology is a license to invade and kill and steal from people who have less technology.
The entire last 500 years of history was lost on him, just like George Bush and about 40\% of the US population.
The 2 million Iraqis America killed over the past 20 years were just sacrifices on the altar of technology, the price of having semiconductors.
BULLSHIT. Europeans developed sophisticated technology first because they lived in the cushiest geography, with beasts of burden and temperate climates and an east-west axis which enabled easy sharing of agricultural innovations.
They were not superior people and had no right to steal from other cultures.Avatar is clearly anti-American, not anti-tech.
Not only do you have parallels with the US war machine killing people in their own homes and stealing their resources, you have the lack of a public health care system forcing one of the characters into war in order to get his spine fixed.
In an ethical society, spine-fixing is funded BEFORE warships, and the warships are used for DEFENSE.
What level of technology you're at is immaterial, totally irrelevant.
Ethics apply whether you're on sailing ships or space ships.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576250</id>
	<title>Re:Curious.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1261997640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm interested in your opinion of the original 300.</p><p>How far off the mark was it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm interested in your opinion of the original 300.How far off the mark was it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm interested in your opinion of the original 300.How far off the mark was it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572880</id>
	<title>Not Anti-Tech</title>
	<author>stormcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1262024220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Avatar is not anti-technology. Technology saved the Na'vi. The movie was making a statement about imperialism and ethnocentrism. Both the Na'vi and the humans possessed advanced technology. The Na'vi have advanced biological tech including a world spanning network that they can tap into at will. They fly, possibly better than humans can with their technology. The Na'vi are not stone age primitive people, they are a highly advanced culture with advanced technology. Their technology is just very different than human technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar is not anti-technology .
Technology saved the Na'vi .
The movie was making a statement about imperialism and ethnocentrism .
Both the Na'vi and the humans possessed advanced technology .
The Na'vi have advanced biological tech including a world spanning network that they can tap into at will .
They fly , possibly better than humans can with their technology .
The Na'vi are not stone age primitive people , they are a highly advanced culture with advanced technology .
Their technology is just very different than human technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar is not anti-technology.
Technology saved the Na'vi.
The movie was making a statement about imperialism and ethnocentrism.
Both the Na'vi and the humans possessed advanced technology.
The Na'vi have advanced biological tech including a world spanning network that they can tap into at will.
They fly, possibly better than humans can with their technology.
The Na'vi are not stone age primitive people, they are a highly advanced culture with advanced technology.
Their technology is just very different than human technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571684</id>
	<title>Re:it's called "entertainment"</title>
	<author>Der Einzige</author>
	<datestamp>1262019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you think "entertainment" is? People see movies because they like stories, and stories are always about people in conflict over difficult moral choices. Even the most brainless, pure fun movie has a good guy who makes the difficult moral choice who is conflict with the bad guy who does what is easy and selfish. People talk about the "messages" in movies because that's what stories are really about. "Show business" -- or, as we used to call it, "art" -- is largely about morality.

I challenge you to try to write a story that has no "message." You'll be amazed at how boring and entertainment-free it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you think " entertainment " is ?
People see movies because they like stories , and stories are always about people in conflict over difficult moral choices .
Even the most brainless , pure fun movie has a good guy who makes the difficult moral choice who is conflict with the bad guy who does what is easy and selfish .
People talk about the " messages " in movies because that 's what stories are really about .
" Show business " -- or , as we used to call it , " art " -- is largely about morality .
I challenge you to try to write a story that has no " message .
" You 'll be amazed at how boring and entertainment-free it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you think "entertainment" is?
People see movies because they like stories, and stories are always about people in conflict over difficult moral choices.
Even the most brainless, pure fun movie has a good guy who makes the difficult moral choice who is conflict with the bad guy who does what is easy and selfish.
People talk about the "messages" in movies because that's what stories are really about.
"Show business" -- or, as we used to call it, "art" -- is largely about morality.
I challenge you to try to write a story that has no "message.
" You'll be amazed at how boring and entertainment-free it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573066</id>
	<title>Think "veggie-borg".</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1262025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the current inhabitants might not be technologically capable, the system as a whole seems like it was designed and built by a culture far more advanced than ours.</p><p>They live inside the organic expert system (hive mind) that provides everything they need. The only difference being that they don't seem to lose their individuality. But the other animals there do and can be controlled by them or by the hive mind.</p><p>Instead of Neal Stephenson's "veg out" and Star Wars article, I'd link this more to Star Trek (TOS). The difference being that in Avatar, the world/computer/ship isn't malfunctioning (that we can tell) and doesn't need our help to repair it/save the inhabitants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the current inhabitants might not be technologically capable , the system as a whole seems like it was designed and built by a culture far more advanced than ours.They live inside the organic expert system ( hive mind ) that provides everything they need .
The only difference being that they do n't seem to lose their individuality .
But the other animals there do and can be controlled by them or by the hive mind.Instead of Neal Stephenson 's " veg out " and Star Wars article , I 'd link this more to Star Trek ( TOS ) .
The difference being that in Avatar , the world/computer/ship is n't malfunctioning ( that we can tell ) and does n't need our help to repair it/save the inhabitants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the current inhabitants might not be technologically capable, the system as a whole seems like it was designed and built by a culture far more advanced than ours.They live inside the organic expert system (hive mind) that provides everything they need.
The only difference being that they don't seem to lose their individuality.
But the other animals there do and can be controlled by them or by the hive mind.Instead of Neal Stephenson's "veg out" and Star Wars article, I'd link this more to Star Trek (TOS).
The difference being that in Avatar, the world/computer/ship isn't malfunctioning (that we can tell) and doesn't need our help to repair it/save the inhabitants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572560</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262023080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more repelled than drawn to the film. I watched it in 2D and could not stand more than 40 minutes. The story is absolutely boring. By the 30 minute mark you can predict every bit of it. It's just a giant collection of trivial tropes and predictable behaviour.</p><p>There was a movie recently from a smaller animation studio that had the same story. Don't recall the name but it was the exact same "bad humans come to harmonic peaceful beings on other planet and want to kill them for resources". Except that it was actually watchable for its full length.</p><p>I don't get why this trivial crap gets so much praise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more repelled than drawn to the film .
I watched it in 2D and could not stand more than 40 minutes .
The story is absolutely boring .
By the 30 minute mark you can predict every bit of it .
It 's just a giant collection of trivial tropes and predictable behaviour.There was a movie recently from a smaller animation studio that had the same story .
Do n't recall the name but it was the exact same " bad humans come to harmonic peaceful beings on other planet and want to kill them for resources " .
Except that it was actually watchable for its full length.I do n't get why this trivial crap gets so much praise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more repelled than drawn to the film.
I watched it in 2D and could not stand more than 40 minutes.
The story is absolutely boring.
By the 30 minute mark you can predict every bit of it.
It's just a giant collection of trivial tropes and predictable behaviour.There was a movie recently from a smaller animation studio that had the same story.
Don't recall the name but it was the exact same "bad humans come to harmonic peaceful beings on other planet and want to kill them for resources".
Except that it was actually watchable for its full length.I don't get why this trivial crap gets so much praise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571180</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262016360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people insist on reading too much into movies? It's just a story and a fairly realistic one at that at least regarding how humans would behave in a not too distant future where a nearby planet happened to have a bunch of resources we needed. I didn't see anything anti-technology about it, just thought yep, that's how humans would behave in a similar situation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people insist on reading too much into movies ?
It 's just a story and a fairly realistic one at that at least regarding how humans would behave in a not too distant future where a nearby planet happened to have a bunch of resources we needed .
I did n't see anything anti-technology about it , just thought yep , that 's how humans would behave in a similar situation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people insist on reading too much into movies?
It's just a story and a fairly realistic one at that at least regarding how humans would behave in a not too distant future where a nearby planet happened to have a bunch of resources we needed.
I didn't see anything anti-technology about it, just thought yep, that's how humans would behave in a similar situation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572492</id>
	<title>And the never ending story</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1262022780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is about the fact that people should use their fantasy more and not just sit and swallow whatever is brought to them, like a movie.</p><p>It is a story. There are many movies where the bad guys win. That does not mean that the people who made the movies are pro-bad guy. It is because people like the story.</p><p>Or was Star Wars realy about bringing down the governement and to make us accept the fact that terrorists are always right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is about the fact that people should use their fantasy more and not just sit and swallow whatever is brought to them , like a movie.It is a story .
There are many movies where the bad guys win .
That does not mean that the people who made the movies are pro-bad guy .
It is because people like the story.Or was Star Wars realy about bringing down the governement and to make us accept the fact that terrorists are always right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is about the fact that people should use their fantasy more and not just sit and swallow whatever is brought to them, like a movie.It is a story.
There are many movies where the bad guys win.
That does not mean that the people who made the movies are pro-bad guy.
It is because people like the story.Or was Star Wars realy about bringing down the governement and to make us accept the fact that terrorists are always right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571110</id>
	<title>Assuming Facts Not In Evidence</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1262016000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Nowhere in Avatar does it explicitly state that technology is the cause of an Earth where there's "no green left" (that's as close as I can recall to a quote from the lead character).  It could just as easily been our tendency to breed like flies on a dung heap that led to the paving of the planet.  It's also pretty clear that the main driving force behind the attempted rape of Pandora isn't Earth's government, but a greedy, conscienceless corporation. </p><p> It's typical of apologists for the on-going, real-life ecological devastation we're inflicting on our little blue planet to try to misrepresent Cameron's message as anti-technology.  In fact it's clearly a cautionary tale against our current trend toward a global corporate oligarchy.  The tech in the film is a tool, neither good nor evil.  It's used by the heroes for positive purposes and the villains in the service of corporate greed. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowhere in Avatar does it explicitly state that technology is the cause of an Earth where there 's " no green left " ( that 's as close as I can recall to a quote from the lead character ) .
It could just as easily been our tendency to breed like flies on a dung heap that led to the paving of the planet .
It 's also pretty clear that the main driving force behind the attempted rape of Pandora is n't Earth 's government , but a greedy , conscienceless corporation .
It 's typical of apologists for the on-going , real-life ecological devastation we 're inflicting on our little blue planet to try to misrepresent Cameron 's message as anti-technology .
In fact it 's clearly a cautionary tale against our current trend toward a global corporate oligarchy .
The tech in the film is a tool , neither good nor evil .
It 's used by the heroes for positive purposes and the villains in the service of corporate greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Nowhere in Avatar does it explicitly state that technology is the cause of an Earth where there's "no green left" (that's as close as I can recall to a quote from the lead character).
It could just as easily been our tendency to breed like flies on a dung heap that led to the paving of the planet.
It's also pretty clear that the main driving force behind the attempted rape of Pandora isn't Earth's government, but a greedy, conscienceless corporation.
It's typical of apologists for the on-going, real-life ecological devastation we're inflicting on our little blue planet to try to misrepresent Cameron's message as anti-technology.
In fact it's clearly a cautionary tale against our current trend toward a global corporate oligarchy.
The tech in the film is a tool, neither good nor evil.
It's used by the heroes for positive purposes and the villains in the service of corporate greed. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575428</id>
	<title>Re:Hippies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261993500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>if the country didn't make it illegal, we'd eat it. thanks alot you conservative whore</htmltext>
<tokenext>if the country did n't make it illegal , we 'd eat it .
thanks alot you conservative whore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the country didn't make it illegal, we'd eat it.
thanks alot you conservative whore</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571838</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1262019780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Noble Savages, White Guilt, Ethno-Transcendentalism.</p><p>A few sequels and we can call them the Bluesploitation movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noble Savages , White Guilt , Ethno-Transcendentalism.A few sequels and we can call them the Bluesploitation movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noble Savages, White Guilt, Ethno-Transcendentalism.A few sequels and we can call them the Bluesploitation movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573338</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1262026200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I had to laugh when I saw how many times the Navi were incorrectly drawing a bow. I'm no expert, but I do know the correct technique.</p></div></blockquote><p>A world with floating islands, a different alien physique, and you're going to assume that they draw a bow the same way that a human would have to?   And they may have different desires as far as power/distance/accuracy/silence tradeoffs go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to laugh when I saw how many times the Navi were incorrectly drawing a bow .
I 'm no expert , but I do know the correct technique.A world with floating islands , a different alien physique , and you 're going to assume that they draw a bow the same way that a human would have to ?
And they may have different desires as far as power/distance/accuracy/silence tradeoffs go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to laugh when I saw how many times the Navi were incorrectly drawing a bow.
I'm no expert, but I do know the correct technique.A world with floating islands, a different alien physique, and you're going to assume that they draw a bow the same way that a human would have to?
And they may have different desires as far as power/distance/accuracy/silence tradeoffs go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574488</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262031780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Cameron say that he had the idea for this story since the early 90s but was waiting for tech to catch up? (blue screen / 3D anime, etc etc)</p><p>I doubt he could have predicted what Bush Jr is going to do, unless he had a very good crystal ball as to what was going to happen 15 years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Cameron say that he had the idea for this story since the early 90s but was waiting for tech to catch up ?
( blue screen / 3D anime , etc etc ) I doubt he could have predicted what Bush Jr is going to do , unless he had a very good crystal ball as to what was going to happen 15 years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Cameron say that he had the idea for this story since the early 90s but was waiting for tech to catch up?
(blue screen / 3D anime, etc etc)I doubt he could have predicted what Bush Jr is going to do, unless he had a very good crystal ball as to what was going to happen 15 years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574022</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262029680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The guilt manifests itself as an embrace of Black culture, a willingness to provide undeserved support to the African American underclass, and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures.</p></div><p>Holy crap, is it Racism is OK day today?</p><p>Let me ask you the reverse: if you see a white person embracing Black culture (whatever that means), exhibit willingness to provide support to the African American underclass (I'm leaving undeserved out, as that's a judgment call) and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures, does that mean that they're automatically stricken with White Guilt?</p><p>Because so far, that's what I'm getting out of this whole discussion. I would really like to know how you distinguish someone suffering from White Guilt from someone who is socially aware. Does it require abandoning all your worldly possessions and live with those you want to help?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guilt manifests itself as an embrace of Black culture , a willingness to provide undeserved support to the African American underclass , and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures.Holy crap , is it Racism is OK day today ? Let me ask you the reverse : if you see a white person embracing Black culture ( whatever that means ) , exhibit willingness to provide support to the African American underclass ( I 'm leaving undeserved out , as that 's a judgment call ) and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures , does that mean that they 're automatically stricken with White Guilt ? Because so far , that 's what I 'm getting out of this whole discussion .
I would really like to know how you distinguish someone suffering from White Guilt from someone who is socially aware .
Does it require abandoning all your worldly possessions and live with those you want to help ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guilt manifests itself as an embrace of Black culture, a willingness to provide undeserved support to the African American underclass, and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures.Holy crap, is it Racism is OK day today?Let me ask you the reverse: if you see a white person embracing Black culture (whatever that means), exhibit willingness to provide support to the African American underclass (I'm leaving undeserved out, as that's a judgment call) and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures, does that mean that they're automatically stricken with White Guilt?Because so far, that's what I'm getting out of this whole discussion.
I would really like to know how you distinguish someone suffering from White Guilt from someone who is socially aware.
Does it require abandoning all your worldly possessions and live with those you want to help?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574886</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261990860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>not sure what doesn't "hold up" there.</p></div><p>Haunting slashdot lecturing people about "harmony" like you'd survive till nightfall in a warrior culture.  You and your $300/month Verizon lifestyle, your slave-labor built iPhone and your rare earth heavy metal filled Prius.  You and your malcontent bullshit hypocrisy.</p><p>In that idyllic warrior culture you so admire, buddies harmoniously weeping over fallen comrades and all, some big dude with big friends would just take your macbook and parade it in front of the clan to convey the harmonious pecking order.  Hows that "hold up" for you?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Harmony doesn't mean your life is easy or long</p></div><p>You won't be going easy when your time comes.  No; you'll listen close while the doc lays out how hes going keep you breathing another six months using the tools provided by the market and its corporate criminals.</p><p>You are what doesn't hold up to scrutiny.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Normally I defend most of the policy tacts that Europe takes over the US...yada yada...single payer...yada yada</p></div><p>Europe conquers the "new world" and its noble savages and fills it with self-loathing noble-savage-wannabes, securely ensconced in their wealth and leisure, lecturing the world about the virtues of the noble savage.</p><p>That wasn't one of the policy 'tacts' you had in mind was it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>not sure what does n't " hold up " there.Haunting slashdot lecturing people about " harmony " like you 'd survive till nightfall in a warrior culture .
You and your $ 300/month Verizon lifestyle , your slave-labor built iPhone and your rare earth heavy metal filled Prius .
You and your malcontent bullshit hypocrisy.In that idyllic warrior culture you so admire , buddies harmoniously weeping over fallen comrades and all , some big dude with big friends would just take your macbook and parade it in front of the clan to convey the harmonious pecking order .
Hows that " hold up " for you ? Harmony does n't mean your life is easy or longYou wo n't be going easy when your time comes .
No ; you 'll listen close while the doc lays out how hes going keep you breathing another six months using the tools provided by the market and its corporate criminals.You are what does n't hold up to scrutiny.Normally I defend most of the policy tacts that Europe takes over the US...yada yada...single payer...yada yadaEurope conquers the " new world " and its noble savages and fills it with self-loathing noble-savage-wannabes , securely ensconced in their wealth and leisure , lecturing the world about the virtues of the noble savage.That was n't one of the policy 'tacts ' you had in mind was it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not sure what doesn't "hold up" there.Haunting slashdot lecturing people about "harmony" like you'd survive till nightfall in a warrior culture.
You and your $300/month Verizon lifestyle, your slave-labor built iPhone and your rare earth heavy metal filled Prius.
You and your malcontent bullshit hypocrisy.In that idyllic warrior culture you so admire, buddies harmoniously weeping over fallen comrades and all, some big dude with big friends would just take your macbook and parade it in front of the clan to convey the harmonious pecking order.
Hows that "hold up" for you?Harmony doesn't mean your life is easy or longYou won't be going easy when your time comes.
No; you'll listen close while the doc lays out how hes going keep you breathing another six months using the tools provided by the market and its corporate criminals.You are what doesn't hold up to scrutiny.Normally I defend most of the policy tacts that Europe takes over the US...yada yada...single payer...yada yadaEurope conquers the "new world" and its noble savages and fills it with self-loathing noble-savage-wannabes, securely ensconced in their wealth and leisure, lecturing the world about the virtues of the noble savage.That wasn't one of the policy 'tacts' you had in mind was it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572152</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1262021400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In today's atmosphere,<br>If you don't have a black character somewhere on the bad corporate side, it's a choice.<br>If the minorities are all heroic characters, it's a choice.<br>If the two main bad guys are both white males, it's a choice.</p><p>In the real world, there are many minority corporate leaders, managers, and supervisors.</p><p>In a movie, people don't "happen to be white".</p><p>I agree that it's anti-corporate but found that theme to be overwhelmed by the "ex-marine military guys are murderous bastards" theme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In today 's atmosphere,If you do n't have a black character somewhere on the bad corporate side , it 's a choice.If the minorities are all heroic characters , it 's a choice.If the two main bad guys are both white males , it 's a choice.In the real world , there are many minority corporate leaders , managers , and supervisors.In a movie , people do n't " happen to be white " .I agree that it 's anti-corporate but found that theme to be overwhelmed by the " ex-marine military guys are murderous bastards " theme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In today's atmosphere,If you don't have a black character somewhere on the bad corporate side, it's a choice.If the minorities are all heroic characters, it's a choice.If the two main bad guys are both white males, it's a choice.In the real world, there are many minority corporate leaders, managers, and supervisors.In a movie, people don't "happen to be white".I agree that it's anti-corporate but found that theme to be overwhelmed by the "ex-marine military guys are murderous bastards" theme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577512</id>
	<title>Fern Gully in Space</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1262007000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>We have been genetically modifying food since we first stopped just gathering it and began cultivating it.  Get over it folks we are constantly modifying our environment and our food stuffs through genetic selection.  Why rail at the fact that we have found a faster way to change what we eat?  Oooh the unknown very scary.  Grow up humans.</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have been genetically modifying food since we first stopped just gathering it and began cultivating it .
Get over it folks we are constantly modifying our environment and our food stuffs through genetic selection .
Why rail at the fact that we have found a faster way to change what we eat ?
Oooh the unknown very scary .
Grow up humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have been genetically modifying food since we first stopped just gathering it and began cultivating it.
Get over it folks we are constantly modifying our environment and our food stuffs through genetic selection.
Why rail at the fact that we have found a faster way to change what we eat?
Oooh the unknown very scary.
Grow up humans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573486</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262027040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mention "privileged white people" and an "African American underclass". Can you explain explain why white people are privileged and African Americans are an underclass?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mention " privileged white people " and an " African American underclass " .
Can you explain explain why white people are privileged and African Americans are an underclass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mention "privileged white people" and an "African American underclass".
Can you explain explain why white people are privileged and African Americans are an underclass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571890</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1262019960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The same thing that happened 50 years ago, or that happens now to the majority of people who cannot afford treatment for the complex disease you mention. Now, are you arguing that society is necessarily more peaceful when there is the medical knowledge for everyone to lead a long, healthy life? Can I offer you Earth as a counterexample?</p></div><p>No, he&rsquo;s claiming that while technology has its misuses it can also be used for good. If you get rid of technology because it&rsquo;s &ldquo;bad&rdquo; you are failing to recognize the good it does and you&rsquo;re painting a rosy picture of the pre-technology world &ndash; overlooking the very problems that the technology was invented to solve.</p><p>How you missed this point is beyond me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing that happened 50 years ago , or that happens now to the majority of people who can not afford treatment for the complex disease you mention .
Now , are you arguing that society is necessarily more peaceful when there is the medical knowledge for everyone to lead a long , healthy life ?
Can I offer you Earth as a counterexample ? No , he    s claiming that while technology has its misuses it can also be used for good .
If you get rid of technology because it    s    bad    you are failing to recognize the good it does and you    re painting a rosy picture of the pre-technology world    overlooking the very problems that the technology was invented to solve.How you missed this point is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing that happened 50 years ago, or that happens now to the majority of people who cannot afford treatment for the complex disease you mention.
Now, are you arguing that society is necessarily more peaceful when there is the medical knowledge for everyone to lead a long, healthy life?
Can I offer you Earth as a counterexample?No, he’s claiming that while technology has its misuses it can also be used for good.
If you get rid of technology because it’s “bad” you are failing to recognize the good it does and you’re painting a rosy picture of the pre-technology world – overlooking the very problems that the technology was invented to solve.How you missed this point is beyond me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576796</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262001180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what Sparta did ( babies born with illnesses were thrown of a cliff) and it is the right thing to do. Why allow such people to breed and then have babies that are even more ill than they were. This is only allowed through medicine and does not help the evolution at all or we would end in the point where all humans are born ill and all humans are working in the medical to heal other ill humans, then this leads to an ultimate demise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what Sparta did ( babies born with illnesses were thrown of a cliff ) and it is the right thing to do .
Why allow such people to breed and then have babies that are even more ill than they were .
This is only allowed through medicine and does not help the evolution at all or we would end in the point where all humans are born ill and all humans are working in the medical to heal other ill humans , then this leads to an ultimate demise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what Sparta did ( babies born with illnesses were thrown of a cliff) and it is the right thing to do.
Why allow such people to breed and then have babies that are even more ill than they were.
This is only allowed through medicine and does not help the evolution at all or we would end in the point where all humans are born ill and all humans are working in the medical to heal other ill humans, then this leads to an ultimate demise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571804</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>IronSilk</author>
	<datestamp>1262019600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why comment on it when you don't have the slightest interest in it? I think you have a slight interest. Also while you are right that the main plot has been done before, this movie adds a lot of nuance, and a thoughtful environmental message. Anyway, the movie is worth seeing for the sheer beauty of it. Go see it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why comment on it when you do n't have the slightest interest in it ?
I think you have a slight interest .
Also while you are right that the main plot has been done before , this movie adds a lot of nuance , and a thoughtful environmental message .
Anyway , the movie is worth seeing for the sheer beauty of it .
Go see it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why comment on it when you don't have the slightest interest in it?
I think you have a slight interest.
Also while you are right that the main plot has been done before, this movie adds a lot of nuance, and a thoughtful environmental message.
Anyway, the movie is worth seeing for the sheer beauty of it.
Go see it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573608</id>
	<title>Cameron is STILL a hippie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny</p></div></blockquote><p>I haven't seen Avatar yet, but somehow this doesn't surprise me.  I had to laugh when someone said:</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't know which species is worse. You don't see <em>them</em> fucking each other over for a buck..</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..until you look at every life form in the history of the universe, constantly competing, and always fucking each other over for a buck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that does n't hold up to close scrutinyI have n't seen Avatar yet , but somehow this does n't surprise me .
I had to laugh when someone said : I do n't know which species is worse .
You do n't see them fucking each other over for a buck.. ..until you look at every life form in the history of the universe , constantly competing , and always fucking each other over for a buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutinyI haven't seen Avatar yet, but somehow this doesn't surprise me.
I had to laugh when someone said:I don't know which species is worse.
You don't see them fucking each other over for a buck.. ..until you look at every life form in the history of the universe, constantly competing, and always fucking each other over for a buck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571234</id>
	<title>Re:it's called "entertainment"</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262016600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because discussions are interesting in themselves. What other justification do you need?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because discussions are interesting in themselves .
What other justification do you need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because discussions are interesting in themselves.
What other justification do you need?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572176</id>
	<title>Not anti-tech.  Just a Power Dream.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262021460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anybody else at the end of the film feel depressed?  --Rather than elation over the blue alien victory, I just felt dread.</p><p>I mean, we've seen this pattern before;  Corporate invasion power doesn't just go home when it's lost a battle.  Not when there remains huge profit to be had.  It just sends out another battle ship.  The blue guys barely won the 'final' battle as it is.  There was a lot of luck involved, and they lost many of their best warriors.</p><p>And didn't the human forces have a massive space platform in orbit around the planet?  They sent home all the human survivors, with all of their intimate strategic intelligence about the planet.  Ugh.  --I recall another quote from a James Cameron film. . .</p><p>"Nuke it from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure."</p><p>There's no way that story ends happily.  The credits just happened to roll on an up-tick.</p><p>When glancing back at American history, I seem to recall noting plenty of Indian massacres when the old-West was settled, but in the end, the interlopers with the boom-sticks always win.</p><p>I came out of Avatar into a massive parking lot which played home to a dozen box stores and felt two things; "Wow! Cool effects" and "Life sucks!"</p><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anybody else at the end of the film feel depressed ?
--Rather than elation over the blue alien victory , I just felt dread.I mean , we 've seen this pattern before ; Corporate invasion power does n't just go home when it 's lost a battle .
Not when there remains huge profit to be had .
It just sends out another battle ship .
The blue guys barely won the 'final ' battle as it is .
There was a lot of luck involved , and they lost many of their best warriors.And did n't the human forces have a massive space platform in orbit around the planet ?
They sent home all the human survivors , with all of their intimate strategic intelligence about the planet .
Ugh. --I recall another quote from a James Cameron film .
. .
" Nuke it from orbit .
It 's the only way to be sure .
" There 's no way that story ends happily .
The credits just happened to roll on an up-tick.When glancing back at American history , I seem to recall noting plenty of Indian massacres when the old-West was settled , but in the end , the interlopers with the boom-sticks always win.I came out of Avatar into a massive parking lot which played home to a dozen box stores and felt two things ; " Wow !
Cool effects " and " Life sucks !
" -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anybody else at the end of the film feel depressed?
--Rather than elation over the blue alien victory, I just felt dread.I mean, we've seen this pattern before;  Corporate invasion power doesn't just go home when it's lost a battle.
Not when there remains huge profit to be had.
It just sends out another battle ship.
The blue guys barely won the 'final' battle as it is.
There was a lot of luck involved, and they lost many of their best warriors.And didn't the human forces have a massive space platform in orbit around the planet?
They sent home all the human survivors, with all of their intimate strategic intelligence about the planet.
Ugh.  --I recall another quote from a James Cameron film.
. .
"Nuke it from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
"There's no way that story ends happily.
The credits just happened to roll on an up-tick.When glancing back at American history, I seem to recall noting plenty of Indian massacres when the old-West was settled, but in the end, the interlopers with the boom-sticks always win.I came out of Avatar into a massive parking lot which played home to a dozen box stores and felt two things; "Wow!
Cool effects" and "Life sucks!
"-FL
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575966</id>
	<title>Silly, Stupid question.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1261996260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>technology used in the movie != the theme or message of the movie.</p><p>2 are irrelevant. the technology is used to create a 'dream' in the movie, which conveys a story and message to you. had this movie been real, and you were in that alternate reality, you would have no problems conciling the message with your reality. you wouldnt stop and think about the mechanics of optics and colors while having your butt kicked. there is no rule that says a movie which utilizes high technology has to give a certain message in regard to technology.</p><p>its like dreams. in a dream, you just see something, feel something, or get a message. the environment, looks, visuals, sounds and feelings of each and every dream is different.</p><p>the question posed in the summary is beyond stupid. im getting the feeling that the posting was done for slashvertisement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>technology used in the movie ! = the theme or message of the movie.2 are irrelevant .
the technology is used to create a 'dream ' in the movie , which conveys a story and message to you .
had this movie been real , and you were in that alternate reality , you would have no problems conciling the message with your reality .
you wouldnt stop and think about the mechanics of optics and colors while having your butt kicked .
there is no rule that says a movie which utilizes high technology has to give a certain message in regard to technology.its like dreams .
in a dream , you just see something , feel something , or get a message .
the environment , looks , visuals , sounds and feelings of each and every dream is different.the question posed in the summary is beyond stupid .
im getting the feeling that the posting was done for slashvertisement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>technology used in the movie != the theme or message of the movie.2 are irrelevant.
the technology is used to create a 'dream' in the movie, which conveys a story and message to you.
had this movie been real, and you were in that alternate reality, you would have no problems conciling the message with your reality.
you wouldnt stop and think about the mechanics of optics and colors while having your butt kicked.
there is no rule that says a movie which utilizes high technology has to give a certain message in regard to technology.its like dreams.
in a dream, you just see something, feel something, or get a message.
the environment, looks, visuals, sounds and feelings of each and every dream is different.the question posed in the summary is beyond stupid.
im getting the feeling that the posting was done for slashvertisement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578248</id>
	<title>Not really noble savage</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1262012760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As expressed elsewhere, the natives could arguably be called post-technical, having moved on from the obvious use of machines to more organic structures, like the organic world-network and the ability to plug into various wildlife.
</p><p>
The thing is, although we get a few *technical* examples of this in the film, (use of the filaments in the hair to bond with a creature and use it as transportation) the sense of a post-technical people doesn't really come out in the film.  It might have, if the writing had been a little deeper.
</p><p>
Which brings us back to the most annoying thing about the plot -- there isn't much of one.  It might have been interesting to explore the ancient history of the natives, at least in conversations with the elders, drop hints that they had progressed from machines to organics, compare/contrast against the human tech, and come to the conclusion that the humans were the primitives.  This would have been an interesting twist that did not require any changes to what we saw of native culture.  But instead we get colorful battles and explosions to little purpose.  A technically cutting-edge but ultimately hollow film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As expressed elsewhere , the natives could arguably be called post-technical , having moved on from the obvious use of machines to more organic structures , like the organic world-network and the ability to plug into various wildlife .
The thing is , although we get a few * technical * examples of this in the film , ( use of the filaments in the hair to bond with a creature and use it as transportation ) the sense of a post-technical people does n't really come out in the film .
It might have , if the writing had been a little deeper .
Which brings us back to the most annoying thing about the plot -- there is n't much of one .
It might have been interesting to explore the ancient history of the natives , at least in conversations with the elders , drop hints that they had progressed from machines to organics , compare/contrast against the human tech , and come to the conclusion that the humans were the primitives .
This would have been an interesting twist that did not require any changes to what we saw of native culture .
But instead we get colorful battles and explosions to little purpose .
A technically cutting-edge but ultimately hollow film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As expressed elsewhere, the natives could arguably be called post-technical, having moved on from the obvious use of machines to more organic structures, like the organic world-network and the ability to plug into various wildlife.
The thing is, although we get a few *technical* examples of this in the film, (use of the filaments in the hair to bond with a creature and use it as transportation) the sense of a post-technical people doesn't really come out in the film.
It might have, if the writing had been a little deeper.
Which brings us back to the most annoying thing about the plot -- there isn't much of one.
It might have been interesting to explore the ancient history of the natives, at least in conversations with the elders, drop hints that they had progressed from machines to organics, compare/contrast against the human tech, and come to the conclusion that the humans were the primitives.
This would have been an interesting twist that did not require any changes to what we saw of native culture.
But instead we get colorful battles and explosions to little purpose.
A technically cutting-edge but ultimately hollow film.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577124</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1262003700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In general, people have practiced infanticide with any baby that wasn't obviously healthy up until about 200 years ago. <br> <br>But generally, once a person is a proper member of a community, they are taken care of when they're sick, with as much resources and technology as that society has. Oftentimes it's not very much. <br> <br>It's not too much different from our society. 100 years ago, if you stopped breathing, you were dead. We didn't have the technology or know-how to sustain or revive you. Now we do, so we do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In general , people have practiced infanticide with any baby that was n't obviously healthy up until about 200 years ago .
But generally , once a person is a proper member of a community , they are taken care of when they 're sick , with as much resources and technology as that society has .
Oftentimes it 's not very much .
It 's not too much different from our society .
100 years ago , if you stopped breathing , you were dead .
We did n't have the technology or know-how to sustain or revive you .
Now we do , so we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general, people have practiced infanticide with any baby that wasn't obviously healthy up until about 200 years ago.
But generally, once a person is a proper member of a community, they are taken care of when they're sick, with as much resources and technology as that society has.
Oftentimes it's not very much.
It's not too much different from our society.
100 years ago, if you stopped breathing, you were dead.
We didn't have the technology or know-how to sustain or revive you.
Now we do, so we do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573108</id>
	<title>That's what he said</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1262025300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's a "people who try to take things from others by force suck" movie.</i></p><p>Exactly, a "white people suck" movie because the implication is that all white people ever do it take by force, except for one lone hero who "breaks the mold".</p><p>You are just echoing the reason why the movie thinks white people suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a " people who try to take things from others by force suck " movie.Exactly , a " white people suck " movie because the implication is that all white people ever do it take by force , except for one lone hero who " breaks the mold " .You are just echoing the reason why the movie thinks white people suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a "people who try to take things from others by force suck" movie.Exactly, a "white people suck" movie because the implication is that all white people ever do it take by force, except for one lone hero who "breaks the mold".You are just echoing the reason why the movie thinks white people suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570920</id>
	<title>Strange, that's not how I saw it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262015040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me, this had a lot of Apocalypse Now and The Last Samurai to it. The racial themes were supposed to run deep, but in my opinion, fell somewhat flat. It ended up being a movie about war and Stockholm syndrome, not about racial prejudice. Sure, there are racist characters, but they're not there to be racist; they're there to make an entrepreneurial living, or to enjoy the smell of napalm in the morning.</p><p>The term "gone native" actually shows up in this movie, which I found fascinating. Here, we're given a chance to show Kurtz's side of the story; we can see a little bit of his reasoning as well as an understanding of his insanity and defection. Just like Kurtz, our heroes decided to defect for reasons stronger than might ever have been apparent, but which are never strongly touched upon within the actual movie.</p><p>Also keep in mind that a lack of technology was not important or emphasized in the final scenes; in fact, I could point to quite a few spots where human technology was required for the day to be saved. Without spoilers, I can't elaborate, but anybody else who has seen it knows what I'm referring to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , this had a lot of Apocalypse Now and The Last Samurai to it .
The racial themes were supposed to run deep , but in my opinion , fell somewhat flat .
It ended up being a movie about war and Stockholm syndrome , not about racial prejudice .
Sure , there are racist characters , but they 're not there to be racist ; they 're there to make an entrepreneurial living , or to enjoy the smell of napalm in the morning.The term " gone native " actually shows up in this movie , which I found fascinating .
Here , we 're given a chance to show Kurtz 's side of the story ; we can see a little bit of his reasoning as well as an understanding of his insanity and defection .
Just like Kurtz , our heroes decided to defect for reasons stronger than might ever have been apparent , but which are never strongly touched upon within the actual movie.Also keep in mind that a lack of technology was not important or emphasized in the final scenes ; in fact , I could point to quite a few spots where human technology was required for the day to be saved .
Without spoilers , I ca n't elaborate , but anybody else who has seen it knows what I 'm referring to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, this had a lot of Apocalypse Now and The Last Samurai to it.
The racial themes were supposed to run deep, but in my opinion, fell somewhat flat.
It ended up being a movie about war and Stockholm syndrome, not about racial prejudice.
Sure, there are racist characters, but they're not there to be racist; they're there to make an entrepreneurial living, or to enjoy the smell of napalm in the morning.The term "gone native" actually shows up in this movie, which I found fascinating.
Here, we're given a chance to show Kurtz's side of the story; we can see a little bit of his reasoning as well as an understanding of his insanity and defection.
Just like Kurtz, our heroes decided to defect for reasons stronger than might ever have been apparent, but which are never strongly touched upon within the actual movie.Also keep in mind that a lack of technology was not important or emphasized in the final scenes; in fact, I could point to quite a few spots where human technology was required for the day to be saved.
Without spoilers, I can't elaborate, but anybody else who has seen it knows what I'm referring to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572622</id>
	<title>no, it was not anti-technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262023260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was anti-:<br>- empiralism<br>- greed<br>- stealing<br>- bullying<br>- murder<br>- destruction of nature<br>- corporatism</p><p>It didn't say anything about anti-technology, just anti- doing bad shit to other beings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was anti- : - empiralism- greed- stealing- bullying- murder- destruction of nature- corporatismIt did n't say anything about anti-technology , just anti- doing bad shit to other beings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was anti-:- empiralism- greed- stealing- bullying- murder- destruction of nature- corporatismIt didn't say anything about anti-technology, just anti- doing bad shit to other beings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572102</id>
	<title>You are funneling money to Iraq ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262021100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ehh ? Pardon me ? where do you think the money for the war in Iraq ends up ? In the hands of Iraq poor villagers or something ?</p><p>The money that YOU (if you are a US citizen) are spending is going to the hands of private military concerns (mostly US based, thats true).</p><p>You are not funneling billions TO IRAQ, you are funneling the billions to private/corporate hands , BECAUSE of war in Iraq. All the benefit Iraq has from the money is the explosions and dead civilians.</p><p>Going into Iraq maybe fiscal nightmare for US, and a humanitarian nightmare for the rest of the world, but its a business of the century for US private/corporate military sector. So far, the analogy sits more than perfectly.</p><p>Have a nice day</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ehh ?
Pardon me ?
where do you think the money for the war in Iraq ends up ?
In the hands of Iraq poor villagers or something ? The money that YOU ( if you are a US citizen ) are spending is going to the hands of private military concerns ( mostly US based , thats true ) .You are not funneling billions TO IRAQ , you are funneling the billions to private/corporate hands , BECAUSE of war in Iraq .
All the benefit Iraq has from the money is the explosions and dead civilians.Going into Iraq maybe fiscal nightmare for US , and a humanitarian nightmare for the rest of the world , but its a business of the century for US private/corporate military sector .
So far , the analogy sits more than perfectly.Have a nice day</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ehh ?
Pardon me ?
where do you think the money for the war in Iraq ends up ?
In the hands of Iraq poor villagers or something ?The money that YOU (if you are a US citizen) are spending is going to the hands of private military concerns (mostly US based, thats true).You are not funneling billions TO IRAQ, you are funneling the billions to private/corporate hands , BECAUSE of war in Iraq.
All the benefit Iraq has from the money is the explosions and dead civilians.Going into Iraq maybe fiscal nightmare for US, and a humanitarian nightmare for the rest of the world, but its a business of the century for US private/corporate military sector.
So far, the analogy sits more than perfectly.Have a nice day</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570884</id>
	<title>Also anti-corporate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite a huge corporate advertising effort from JC's big corporate budget movies. Typical hypocrisy from someone flying in a private jet to educate the proles on resource over-utilization and lectures on greed from a mansion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite a huge corporate advertising effort from JC 's big corporate budget movies .
Typical hypocrisy from someone flying in a private jet to educate the proles on resource over-utilization and lectures on greed from a mansion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite a huge corporate advertising effort from JC's big corporate budget movies.
Typical hypocrisy from someone flying in a private jet to educate the proles on resource over-utilization and lectures on greed from a mansion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571392</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>thepainguy</author>
	<datestamp>1262017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.<br> <br>IMO this was a cheap shot that reflects lazy, knee-jerk thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
IMO this was a cheap shot that reflects lazy , knee-jerk thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
IMO this was a cheap shot that reflects lazy, knee-jerk thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578062</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262011200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A friend who actually lived for two years with a south american tribe claimed that crippled babies were drowned as quickly as possible.</p></div><p>The Greeks used to leave them on Mt Olympus for the "gods" to take care of, for another example. In fact, pretty much any culture prior to the 19th century disposed of deformed children, generally due to a belief that they were possessed, offspring of demons or other non-human critters, etc. The instances in which they were left alive they were generally considered touched, charmed, magical, or otherwise not-quite-human.</p><p>My personal theory is that it's a genetic survival mechanism of the species, where harmful mutations are immediately purged from the pool. Also, in many "primitive" cultures they simply didn't have the resources to waste taking care of the "disabled".</p><p>Nature is much harsher and crueler than anything man has done. We like to get on a moral high ground by bucking the natural trend of might makes right, but in all reality the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is who is left alive.</p><p>People also like to spout off about some kind of crap that says that this culture or that animal or plant species lives in "harmony and balance" with other species. Bull Shit. They are FORCED into "harmony" either through their own actions (i.e. they all die off because they eat all the food) or by the actions of other things (they die off because something else eats them for food, or maybe the climate changes, volcano, etc.). Many native cultures adopted a philosophy of living in balance with nature because they observed that in nature, the things which survived were the things that existed in a balance. They also weren't dumb or ignorant like most people nowdays think they were- it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you have a chicken and a rooster, it's a better idea to eat the eggs and not the animal. Most of the cultures who lived in "harmony" with nature recognized the fundamental right of survival- even a sacred animal could be eaten in times of need, for example. You can pretty much sum up the philosophy with the phrase, "Use some Common Sense".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend who actually lived for two years with a south american tribe claimed that crippled babies were drowned as quickly as possible.The Greeks used to leave them on Mt Olympus for the " gods " to take care of , for another example .
In fact , pretty much any culture prior to the 19th century disposed of deformed children , generally due to a belief that they were possessed , offspring of demons or other non-human critters , etc .
The instances in which they were left alive they were generally considered touched , charmed , magical , or otherwise not-quite-human.My personal theory is that it 's a genetic survival mechanism of the species , where harmful mutations are immediately purged from the pool .
Also , in many " primitive " cultures they simply did n't have the resources to waste taking care of the " disabled " .Nature is much harsher and crueler than anything man has done .
We like to get on a moral high ground by bucking the natural trend of might makes right , but in all reality the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is who is left alive.People also like to spout off about some kind of crap that says that this culture or that animal or plant species lives in " harmony and balance " with other species .
Bull Shit .
They are FORCED into " harmony " either through their own actions ( i.e .
they all die off because they eat all the food ) or by the actions of other things ( they die off because something else eats them for food , or maybe the climate changes , volcano , etc. ) .
Many native cultures adopted a philosophy of living in balance with nature because they observed that in nature , the things which survived were the things that existed in a balance .
They also were n't dumb or ignorant like most people nowdays think they were- it does n't take a genius to figure out that if you have a chicken and a rooster , it 's a better idea to eat the eggs and not the animal .
Most of the cultures who lived in " harmony " with nature recognized the fundamental right of survival- even a sacred animal could be eaten in times of need , for example .
You can pretty much sum up the philosophy with the phrase , " Use some Common Sense " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend who actually lived for two years with a south american tribe claimed that crippled babies were drowned as quickly as possible.The Greeks used to leave them on Mt Olympus for the "gods" to take care of, for another example.
In fact, pretty much any culture prior to the 19th century disposed of deformed children, generally due to a belief that they were possessed, offspring of demons or other non-human critters, etc.
The instances in which they were left alive they were generally considered touched, charmed, magical, or otherwise not-quite-human.My personal theory is that it's a genetic survival mechanism of the species, where harmful mutations are immediately purged from the pool.
Also, in many "primitive" cultures they simply didn't have the resources to waste taking care of the "disabled".Nature is much harsher and crueler than anything man has done.
We like to get on a moral high ground by bucking the natural trend of might makes right, but in all reality the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is who is left alive.People also like to spout off about some kind of crap that says that this culture or that animal or plant species lives in "harmony and balance" with other species.
Bull Shit.
They are FORCED into "harmony" either through their own actions (i.e.
they all die off because they eat all the food) or by the actions of other things (they die off because something else eats them for food, or maybe the climate changes, volcano, etc.).
Many native cultures adopted a philosophy of living in balance with nature because they observed that in nature, the things which survived were the things that existed in a balance.
They also weren't dumb or ignorant like most people nowdays think they were- it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you have a chicken and a rooster, it's a better idea to eat the eggs and not the animal.
Most of the cultures who lived in "harmony" with nature recognized the fundamental right of survival- even a sacred animal could be eaten in times of need, for example.
You can pretty much sum up the philosophy with the phrase, "Use some Common Sense".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572464</id>
	<title>What do you expect&mdash;It's Unobtanium!</title>
	<author>pbooktebo</author>
	<datestamp>1262022720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The humans should have known their chances of getting their hands on "unobtanium" were pretty meagre to begin with...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The humans should have known their chances of getting their hands on " unobtanium " were pretty meagre to begin with... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The humans should have known their chances of getting their hands on "unobtanium" were pretty meagre to begin with... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571074</id>
	<title>Silly, Infantile Discussion</title>
	<author>smackenzie</author>
	<datestamp>1262015820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the beginning of time:<br>
<br>
* Look, fire!  Now I can keep my family warm and safe.<br>
* Look, fire!  Now I can go burn down the hut of my annoying neighbors.<br>
<br>
* Look, trigonometry!  Now I can build bridges.<br>
* Look, trigonometry!  Now I can launch projectiles at those bridges.<br>
<br>
* Look, printing press!  Now I can communicate broadly.<br>
* Look, printing press!  Now I can subjugate broadly.<br>
<br>
* Look, nuclear technology!  Now I can radiate cancer and use PET scans.<br>
* Look, nuclear technology!  Now I can blow cities up...<br>
<br>
etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the beginning of time : * Look , fire !
Now I can keep my family warm and safe .
* Look , fire !
Now I can go burn down the hut of my annoying neighbors .
* Look , trigonometry !
Now I can build bridges .
* Look , trigonometry !
Now I can launch projectiles at those bridges .
* Look , printing press !
Now I can communicate broadly .
* Look , printing press !
Now I can subjugate broadly .
* Look , nuclear technology !
Now I can radiate cancer and use PET scans .
* Look , nuclear technology !
Now I can blow cities up.. . etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the beginning of time:

* Look, fire!
Now I can keep my family warm and safe.
* Look, fire!
Now I can go burn down the hut of my annoying neighbors.
* Look, trigonometry!
Now I can build bridges.
* Look, trigonometry!
Now I can launch projectiles at those bridges.
* Look, printing press!
Now I can communicate broadly.
* Look, printing press!
Now I can subjugate broadly.
* Look, nuclear technology!
Now I can radiate cancer and use PET scans.
* Look, nuclear technology!
Now I can blow cities up...

etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572556</id>
	<title>why?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1262023020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie, and why are we drawn to it?
</p><p>
The trivial answer is that anti-tech white-man-guilt pollution-destroying stories are popular right now.  They are more likely to garner good reviews and make lots of money so the higher-ups involved can live in huge houses and drive to events in gigantic limos.  It's similar to when the abundantly wealthy bemoan that executive salaries are too high.  They say it because it's a popular thing to say.  And they're pretty confident that the audience won't notice the incongruity.
</p><p>
The question I would ask:  Why does such an expensive movie that took so long to make have a shamelessly derivative two-bit plot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The question is two-fold : why have a technically sophisticated , anti-technical movie , and why are we drawn to it ?
The trivial answer is that anti-tech white-man-guilt pollution-destroying stories are popular right now .
They are more likely to garner good reviews and make lots of money so the higher-ups involved can live in huge houses and drive to events in gigantic limos .
It 's similar to when the abundantly wealthy bemoan that executive salaries are too high .
They say it because it 's a popular thing to say .
And they 're pretty confident that the audience wo n't notice the incongruity .
The question I would ask : Why does such an expensive movie that took so long to make have a shamelessly derivative two-bit plot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie, and why are we drawn to it?
The trivial answer is that anti-tech white-man-guilt pollution-destroying stories are popular right now.
They are more likely to garner good reviews and make lots of money so the higher-ups involved can live in huge houses and drive to events in gigantic limos.
It's similar to when the abundantly wealthy bemoan that executive salaries are too high.
They say it because it's a popular thing to say.
And they're pretty confident that the audience won't notice the incongruity.
The question I would ask:  Why does such an expensive movie that took so long to make have a shamelessly derivative two-bit plot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573262</id>
	<title>Anti MMORPG?</title>
	<author>HenryKoren</author>
	<datestamp>1262025900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe there was a bit of an anti-MMO angle to the film.   Essentially, as the controller of an avatar you're jacking yourself in to posses control of a body that is larger than life.  Meanwhile your physical body atrophies.   Though the outside world might oppose you, it becomes your the MMO addicts overarching goal to get back into the game.  But World of Warcraft will never be as immersive as controlling an avatar,  the world will never be as rich or deep as pandora, and there will never be a ceremony to transfer your soul into your new, superior container.  So really, why bother living in the machine?</p><p>Anybody else see this as a theme in the movie or was it just me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there was a bit of an anti-MMO angle to the film .
Essentially , as the controller of an avatar you 're jacking yourself in to posses control of a body that is larger than life .
Meanwhile your physical body atrophies .
Though the outside world might oppose you , it becomes your the MMO addicts overarching goal to get back into the game .
But World of Warcraft will never be as immersive as controlling an avatar , the world will never be as rich or deep as pandora , and there will never be a ceremony to transfer your soul into your new , superior container .
So really , why bother living in the machine ? Anybody else see this as a theme in the movie or was it just me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there was a bit of an anti-MMO angle to the film.
Essentially, as the controller of an avatar you're jacking yourself in to posses control of a body that is larger than life.
Meanwhile your physical body atrophies.
Though the outside world might oppose you, it becomes your the MMO addicts overarching goal to get back into the game.
But World of Warcraft will never be as immersive as controlling an avatar,  the world will never be as rich or deep as pandora, and there will never be a ceremony to transfer your soul into your new, superior container.
So really, why bother living in the machine?Anybody else see this as a theme in the movie or was it just me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571744</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1262019240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Living in harmony with nature restricts farming so you cannot get food, ever. You are surplus human inventory whose feeding would place an unsustainable burden on the environment.</p><p>Everyone else is slightly above starvation level, but you still don't have enough sustainably grown food for you. What do you do now? Curse your parents?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Living in harmony with nature restricts farming so you can not get food , ever .
You are surplus human inventory whose feeding would place an unsustainable burden on the environment.Everyone else is slightly above starvation level , but you still do n't have enough sustainably grown food for you .
What do you do now ?
Curse your parents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living in harmony with nature restricts farming so you cannot get food, ever.
You are surplus human inventory whose feeding would place an unsustainable burden on the environment.Everyone else is slightly above starvation level, but you still don't have enough sustainably grown food for you.
What do you do now?
Curse your parents?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575282</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lol and how many Iraqi oil companies do you know of? Oh I'm sure someone's getting paid, but it's not the Iraqi people. When they said steal the oil, I highly doubt they meant the US government was going to literally steal it for the US people. They basically opened up Iraq for our Oil companies to make sweetheart deals with a government we put in power. So yeah they are making it easy for these US oil companies or our good friend the UK's oil companies to make massive profits. We're footing that bill for the reconstruction, but oh wow look it's Cheney's old company Haliburton getting paid to rebuild it. See that's what you are missing, we replaced a dictator who we originally helped put in power because he wasn't doing what our companies wanted anymore. If we were so noble we'd be in Darfur right now or one of the dozens of other places that were much worse then Iraq.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol and how many Iraqi oil companies do you know of ?
Oh I 'm sure someone 's getting paid , but it 's not the Iraqi people .
When they said steal the oil , I highly doubt they meant the US government was going to literally steal it for the US people .
They basically opened up Iraq for our Oil companies to make sweetheart deals with a government we put in power .
So yeah they are making it easy for these US oil companies or our good friend the UK 's oil companies to make massive profits .
We 're footing that bill for the reconstruction , but oh wow look it 's Cheney 's old company Haliburton getting paid to rebuild it .
See that 's what you are missing , we replaced a dictator who we originally helped put in power because he was n't doing what our companies wanted anymore .
If we were so noble we 'd be in Darfur right now or one of the dozens of other places that were much worse then Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol and how many Iraqi oil companies do you know of?
Oh I'm sure someone's getting paid, but it's not the Iraqi people.
When they said steal the oil, I highly doubt they meant the US government was going to literally steal it for the US people.
They basically opened up Iraq for our Oil companies to make sweetheart deals with a government we put in power.
So yeah they are making it easy for these US oil companies or our good friend the UK's oil companies to make massive profits.
We're footing that bill for the reconstruction, but oh wow look it's Cheney's old company Haliburton getting paid to rebuild it.
See that's what you are missing, we replaced a dictator who we originally helped put in power because he wasn't doing what our companies wanted anymore.
If we were so noble we'd be in Darfur right now or one of the dozens of other places that were much worse then Iraq.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571070</id>
	<title>One doesn't have to be against x to moderate it</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1262015820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pro-alcohol but also pro-moderation.</p><p>Avatar was a fairly amazing movie. I'm comparing and contrasting with the new Star Wars. There was probably even more bluescreen in Avatar than Star Wars but Pandora felt convincing and vibrant, completely alive. You never hear people criticizing the Death Star battle in A New Hope saying it looks like a video game, it was just awesome and exciting. I think part of the video game critique comes from movies that overuse bad CGI and make things look little better than the average page and part of it comes from the audience being unable to connect emotionally with those characters. Compare Pandora with any of the environments from the the new trilogy and it's just a lesson in CGI done wrong and CGI done right.</p><p>The false dichotomy most people fall into with environmentalism vs. tech is that it's an either/or proposition. "Look, we're either running around in the boonies with bones through our noses and die of preventable diseases before we're 30 or we have to clearcut the forests and live in sterile concrete and steel towers, there's no middle ground." And that's not really true. What's needed is the judicious application of technology, conforming with the needs of the environment rather than trying to thwart or control it.</p><p>I'm interested to see what the conservative backlash against this movie will be. Conservatives have been wanting to chew Al Gore's eyeballs out ever since an Inconvenient Truth. There's a strange kind of glee about destroying environmental sacred cows like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It's not like the truck barreling down the road indifferent to whether or not there's an animal in the road, it's the truck <i>deliberately</i> swerving to hit the animal, just for fun. This movie is big, awesome, has s'plosions, is from a director who has made some of the most awesome guy movies ever, and it has a message that could only be seen as environmentalist propaganda. This is a 20th century fox film so that explains why Faux News has been told to keep a lid on it. If this came out from any other studio that network would be frothing. Dunno if Limbaugh had anything to say about it yet. He's not affiliated with Faux and has no financial stake in the project. He'd have to go apeshit over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pro-alcohol but also pro-moderation.Avatar was a fairly amazing movie .
I 'm comparing and contrasting with the new Star Wars .
There was probably even more bluescreen in Avatar than Star Wars but Pandora felt convincing and vibrant , completely alive .
You never hear people criticizing the Death Star battle in A New Hope saying it looks like a video game , it was just awesome and exciting .
I think part of the video game critique comes from movies that overuse bad CGI and make things look little better than the average page and part of it comes from the audience being unable to connect emotionally with those characters .
Compare Pandora with any of the environments from the the new trilogy and it 's just a lesson in CGI done wrong and CGI done right.The false dichotomy most people fall into with environmentalism vs. tech is that it 's an either/or proposition .
" Look , we 're either running around in the boonies with bones through our noses and die of preventable diseases before we 're 30 or we have to clearcut the forests and live in sterile concrete and steel towers , there 's no middle ground .
" And that 's not really true .
What 's needed is the judicious application of technology , conforming with the needs of the environment rather than trying to thwart or control it.I 'm interested to see what the conservative backlash against this movie will be .
Conservatives have been wanting to chew Al Gore 's eyeballs out ever since an Inconvenient Truth .
There 's a strange kind of glee about destroying environmental sacred cows like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge .
It 's not like the truck barreling down the road indifferent to whether or not there 's an animal in the road , it 's the truck deliberately swerving to hit the animal , just for fun .
This movie is big , awesome , has s'plosions , is from a director who has made some of the most awesome guy movies ever , and it has a message that could only be seen as environmentalist propaganda .
This is a 20th century fox film so that explains why Faux News has been told to keep a lid on it .
If this came out from any other studio that network would be frothing .
Dunno if Limbaugh had anything to say about it yet .
He 's not affiliated with Faux and has no financial stake in the project .
He 'd have to go apeshit over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pro-alcohol but also pro-moderation.Avatar was a fairly amazing movie.
I'm comparing and contrasting with the new Star Wars.
There was probably even more bluescreen in Avatar than Star Wars but Pandora felt convincing and vibrant, completely alive.
You never hear people criticizing the Death Star battle in A New Hope saying it looks like a video game, it was just awesome and exciting.
I think part of the video game critique comes from movies that overuse bad CGI and make things look little better than the average page and part of it comes from the audience being unable to connect emotionally with those characters.
Compare Pandora with any of the environments from the the new trilogy and it's just a lesson in CGI done wrong and CGI done right.The false dichotomy most people fall into with environmentalism vs. tech is that it's an either/or proposition.
"Look, we're either running around in the boonies with bones through our noses and die of preventable diseases before we're 30 or we have to clearcut the forests and live in sterile concrete and steel towers, there's no middle ground.
" And that's not really true.
What's needed is the judicious application of technology, conforming with the needs of the environment rather than trying to thwart or control it.I'm interested to see what the conservative backlash against this movie will be.
Conservatives have been wanting to chew Al Gore's eyeballs out ever since an Inconvenient Truth.
There's a strange kind of glee about destroying environmental sacred cows like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
It's not like the truck barreling down the road indifferent to whether or not there's an animal in the road, it's the truck deliberately swerving to hit the animal, just for fun.
This movie is big, awesome, has s'plosions, is from a director who has made some of the most awesome guy movies ever, and it has a message that could only be seen as environmentalist propaganda.
This is a 20th century fox film so that explains why Faux News has been told to keep a lid on it.
If this came out from any other studio that network would be frothing.
Dunno if Limbaugh had anything to say about it yet.
He's not affiliated with Faux and has no financial stake in the project.
He'd have to go apeshit over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571344</id>
	<title>Curious.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1262017200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have heard other people express the sentiment that they don't intend to see this film because of the similarity to the plight of the American Indians.</p><p>I wonder, do you have a problem with films in the tragic genre in general or just ones that strike too close to historical reality for comfort?</p><p>For example, did you similarly boycott "300"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard other people express the sentiment that they do n't intend to see this film because of the similarity to the plight of the American Indians.I wonder , do you have a problem with films in the tragic genre in general or just ones that strike too close to historical reality for comfort ? For example , did you similarly boycott " 300 " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard other people express the sentiment that they don't intend to see this film because of the similarity to the plight of the American Indians.I wonder, do you have a problem with films in the tragic genre in general or just ones that strike too close to historical reality for comfort?For example, did you similarly boycott "300"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575984</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>PieceofLavalamp</author>
	<datestamp>1261996380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>do you know how your computer works? Do really understand?<br>
 nope. <br>
Partly because some of how it works is a corporate secret. Largely because you don't need to.<br>
 But that doesn't make you low tech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>do you know how your computer works ?
Do really understand ?
nope . Partly because some of how it works is a corporate secret .
Largely because you do n't need to .
But that does n't make you low tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do you know how your computer works?
Do really understand?
nope. 
Partly because some of how it works is a corporate secret.
Largely because you don't need to.
But that doesn't make you low tech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572350</id>
	<title>Wrong Message</title>
	<author>Sasayaki</author>
	<datestamp>1262022180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many other +5 insightfuls have said it before me, but the movie isn't anti-technology. There are many quotes to support this, but the most damning evidence comes from the movie itself- in order to down the Valkaryie bomber at the end, Jake Sully uses... marine grenades. In order to board the ship, he uses... a machine gun. In order to coordinate his attack, he uses... radio communicators.</p><p>Without any of these things, the ambush would either fail or be significantly harder to pull off. The Na'vi don't hate their technology- at no point is there even a symbolic rejection of their *tools*. It's simply the behaviour of the humans that offends them.</p><p>So the movie is not anti-technology. It is anvilicious on other topics, but it's not anti-technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many other + 5 insightfuls have said it before me , but the movie is n't anti-technology .
There are many quotes to support this , but the most damning evidence comes from the movie itself- in order to down the Valkaryie bomber at the end , Jake Sully uses... marine grenades .
In order to board the ship , he uses... a machine gun .
In order to coordinate his attack , he uses... radio communicators.Without any of these things , the ambush would either fail or be significantly harder to pull off .
The Na'vi do n't hate their technology- at no point is there even a symbolic rejection of their * tools * .
It 's simply the behaviour of the humans that offends them.So the movie is not anti-technology .
It is anvilicious on other topics , but it 's not anti-technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many other +5 insightfuls have said it before me, but the movie isn't anti-technology.
There are many quotes to support this, but the most damning evidence comes from the movie itself- in order to down the Valkaryie bomber at the end, Jake Sully uses... marine grenades.
In order to board the ship, he uses... a machine gun.
In order to coordinate his attack, he uses... radio communicators.Without any of these things, the ambush would either fail or be significantly harder to pull off.
The Na'vi don't hate their technology- at no point is there even a symbolic rejection of their *tools*.
It's simply the behaviour of the humans that offends them.So the movie is not anti-technology.
It is anvilicious on other topics, but it's not anti-technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573296</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>". The fact that the people who did this to Native Americans happened to be white is completely irrelevant"</p><p>And the Africans and the Panamanians and pretty much anywhere they saw something that they wanted with poorly armed indigenous ppl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" .
The fact that the people who did this to Native Americans happened to be white is completely irrelevant " And the Africans and the Panamanians and pretty much anywhere they saw something that they wanted with poorly armed indigenous ppl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>".
The fact that the people who did this to Native Americans happened to be white is completely irrelevant"And the Africans and the Panamanians and pretty much anywhere they saw something that they wanted with poorly armed indigenous ppl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</id>
	<title>Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>thepainguy</author>
	<datestamp>1262014320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of this is standard noble savage stuff.<br> <br>It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine. Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.<br> <br>This stuff sounds great until you start to think about it really hard.<br> <br>P.S. And at the end of the movie I was rooting for the "indians" just like everyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of this is standard noble savage stuff .
It 's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that does n't hold up to close scrutiny .
For instance , what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine .
Also , in the real world packs of wolves and bears do n't just leave you alone .
This stuff sounds great until you start to think about it really hard .
P.S. And at the end of the movie I was rooting for the " indians " just like everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of this is standard noble savage stuff.
It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.
Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.
This stuff sounds great until you start to think about it really hard.
P.S. And at the end of the movie I was rooting for the "indians" just like everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572296</id>
	<title>Re:it's called "entertainment"</title>
	<author>ThousandStars</author>
	<datestamp>1262022000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>it's just entertainment, for crying out loud.</i> <p>My generic response is that if we had higher standards collectively, maybe we'd get better entertainment. </p><p>My specific response is that <em>Avatar</em> obviously aspires to have a message, whether it be about the eco system, greed, or whatever. So it deserves real criticism.</p><p>My third response is that entertainment is almost never just entertainment: it both reinforces, responds to, and creates social and ethical values through the story it presents; see Pierre Bourdieu's book <em>The Field of Cultural Production</em> for more on that topic. To deny that is to allow the thoughts of others as presented in story to replace your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's just entertainment , for crying out loud .
My generic response is that if we had higher standards collectively , maybe we 'd get better entertainment .
My specific response is that Avatar obviously aspires to have a message , whether it be about the eco system , greed , or whatever .
So it deserves real criticism.My third response is that entertainment is almost never just entertainment : it both reinforces , responds to , and creates social and ethical values through the story it presents ; see Pierre Bourdieu 's book The Field of Cultural Production for more on that topic .
To deny that is to allow the thoughts of others as presented in story to replace your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's just entertainment, for crying out loud.
My generic response is that if we had higher standards collectively, maybe we'd get better entertainment.
My specific response is that Avatar obviously aspires to have a message, whether it be about the eco system, greed, or whatever.
So it deserves real criticism.My third response is that entertainment is almost never just entertainment: it both reinforces, responds to, and creates social and ethical values through the story it presents; see Pierre Bourdieu's book The Field of Cultural Production for more on that topic.
To deny that is to allow the thoughts of others as presented in story to replace your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571754</id>
	<title>Re:it's called "entertainment"</title>
	<author>IronSilk</author>
	<datestamp>1262019300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Objected. "Just entertainment" has powerful effects on humans, including me and you. There are tons of examples of movies that shifted society and how we think about it. Movies are art--some of it bad, some of it great, like Avatar. The fact that it is commercial art doesn't make it less artful--it's just a constraint of the medium. <br> <br>

This movie actually is deep, and merits a deep discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Objected .
" Just entertainment " has powerful effects on humans , including me and you .
There are tons of examples of movies that shifted society and how we think about it .
Movies are art--some of it bad , some of it great , like Avatar .
The fact that it is commercial art does n't make it less artful--it 's just a constraint of the medium .
This movie actually is deep , and merits a deep discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Objected.
"Just entertainment" has powerful effects on humans, including me and you.
There are tons of examples of movies that shifted society and how we think about it.
Movies are art--some of it bad, some of it great, like Avatar.
The fact that it is commercial art doesn't make it less artful--it's just a constraint of the medium.
This movie actually is deep, and merits a deep discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572950</id>
	<title>Greed and arrogance</title>
	<author>heteromonomer</author>
	<datestamp>1262024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I grew up watching star trek. Whatever we may profess as our ideals, e.g. the Prime Directive, when it comes to reality, if we ever find a world like that, I am sure there will be people and corporations which will try to plunder it ruthlessly and wipe out the local life forms (which will resist). It has happened before in history. It is happening now. The movie sends a valid message. That as a race (I mean human race), we need to grow up. Unfortunately, the reaction will often be zomg! the movie is anti-capitalistic, anti-development and so on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up watching star trek .
Whatever we may profess as our ideals , e.g .
the Prime Directive , when it comes to reality , if we ever find a world like that , I am sure there will be people and corporations which will try to plunder it ruthlessly and wipe out the local life forms ( which will resist ) .
It has happened before in history .
It is happening now .
The movie sends a valid message .
That as a race ( I mean human race ) , we need to grow up .
Unfortunately , the reaction will often be zomg !
the movie is anti-capitalistic , anti-development and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up watching star trek.
Whatever we may profess as our ideals, e.g.
the Prime Directive, when it comes to reality, if we ever find a world like that, I am sure there will be people and corporations which will try to plunder it ruthlessly and wipe out the local life forms (which will resist).
It has happened before in history.
It is happening now.
The movie sends a valid message.
That as a race (I mean human race), we need to grow up.
Unfortunately, the reaction will often be zomg!
the movie is anti-capitalistic, anti-development and so on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570952</id>
	<title>Anti-corporate and pro-envirnoment != anti-tech</title>
	<author>bigsexyjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1262015220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep in mind corporations suppress "disruptive" technologies. Alternative fuels that can save our environment are just one example.
<p>
And what about technology is that means you have to invade worlds to steal their resources?  Technology is just a means to an end.
</p><p>
At this point I think it's clear that doing more on fewer resources is the end to be pursuing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind corporations suppress " disruptive " technologies .
Alternative fuels that can save our environment are just one example .
And what about technology is that means you have to invade worlds to steal their resources ?
Technology is just a means to an end .
At this point I think it 's clear that doing more on fewer resources is the end to be pursuing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind corporations suppress "disruptive" technologies.
Alternative fuels that can save our environment are just one example.
And what about technology is that means you have to invade worlds to steal their resources?
Technology is just a means to an end.
At this point I think it's clear that doing more on fewer resources is the end to be pursuing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571330</id>
	<title>Avatar's story argues that technology is bad.</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1262017140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Avatar's story argues that technology is bad. Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.</p></div><p>Bad?  That's how awesome technology is.  It allows us to do the impossible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar 's story argues that technology is bad .
Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.Bad ?
That 's how awesome technology is .
It allows us to do the impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar's story argues that technology is bad.
Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.Bad?
That's how awesome technology is.
It allows us to do the impossible.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572292</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262022000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The phrase "peaceful people living in harmony with nature" is the part that doesn't hold up.  It completely ignores nature's primary means of maintaining harmony, namely killing off things.  Preador and prey populations are regulated by scarcity for the former and hunting for the latter.  These peacful people live in harmony with nature by the virtue that they are able to do the "harmonizing" better.  The only reason their local super-preadator isn't using them as snacks is either A: they've developed killing skills superior to the local preadators, or B: alien-magic.<br>Living in harmony with "nature" is like living in harmony with fire.  They both have the same movtives, none.  They both care about you in the same way, not at all.  They both have the same feelings and desires about eating you.<br> <br>As for what the Europeans did differently than the Native Americans with regard to their loved ones when they lacked the benefits of modern medicine.  The Europeans invented scientific method and modern medicine.  I've no doubt that the Native American's would have done so as well, eventually, but it would have come at some point after they figured out bronze.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The phrase " peaceful people living in harmony with nature " is the part that does n't hold up .
It completely ignores nature 's primary means of maintaining harmony , namely killing off things .
Preador and prey populations are regulated by scarcity for the former and hunting for the latter .
These peacful people live in harmony with nature by the virtue that they are able to do the " harmonizing " better .
The only reason their local super-preadator is n't using them as snacks is either A : they 've developed killing skills superior to the local preadators , or B : alien-magic.Living in harmony with " nature " is like living in harmony with fire .
They both have the same movtives , none .
They both care about you in the same way , not at all .
They both have the same feelings and desires about eating you .
As for what the Europeans did differently than the Native Americans with regard to their loved ones when they lacked the benefits of modern medicine .
The Europeans invented scientific method and modern medicine .
I 've no doubt that the Native American 's would have done so as well , eventually , but it would have come at some point after they figured out bronze .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phrase "peaceful people living in harmony with nature" is the part that doesn't hold up.
It completely ignores nature's primary means of maintaining harmony, namely killing off things.
Preador and prey populations are regulated by scarcity for the former and hunting for the latter.
These peacful people live in harmony with nature by the virtue that they are able to do the "harmonizing" better.
The only reason their local super-preadator isn't using them as snacks is either A: they've developed killing skills superior to the local preadators, or B: alien-magic.Living in harmony with "nature" is like living in harmony with fire.
They both have the same movtives, none.
They both care about you in the same way, not at all.
They both have the same feelings and desires about eating you.
As for what the Europeans did differently than the Native Americans with regard to their loved ones when they lacked the benefits of modern medicine.
The Europeans invented scientific method and modern medicine.
I've no doubt that the Native American's would have done so as well, eventually, but it would have come at some point after they figured out bronze.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571422</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>Dammital</author>
	<datestamp>1262017620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's fair enough; I wasn't looking forward to being beaten by the Pocahontas bludgeon again.  But I've got to say that the film is a technological wonder - lots of moving parts, fractals, motion capture, other stuff.  Cameron (and ILM, WETA and other folks) set this bar pretty high.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it .
That 's fair enough ; I was n't looking forward to being beaten by the Pocahontas bludgeon again .
But I 've got to say that the film is a technological wonder - lots of moving parts , fractals , motion capture , other stuff .
Cameron ( and ILM , WETA and other folks ) set this bar pretty high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it.
That's fair enough; I wasn't looking forward to being beaten by the Pocahontas bludgeon again.
But I've got to say that the film is a technological wonder - lots of moving parts, fractals, motion capture, other stuff.
Cameron (and ILM, WETA and other folks) set this bar pretty high.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574088</id>
	<title>Re:Silly, Infantile Discussion</title>
	<author>NotQuiteInsane</author>
	<datestamp>1262029920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had any mod points, I'd be trying to decide whether to vote "+1 funny" or "+1 informative" right now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had any mod points , I 'd be trying to decide whether to vote " + 1 funny " or " + 1 informative " right now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had any mod points, I'd be trying to decide whether to vote "+1 funny" or "+1 informative" right now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571570</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>WreathOfBarbs</author>
	<datestamp>1262018400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  Not sure if you noticed, but the human defenders didn't actually contribute that much.  Other than preventing a particularly large node of the planetary tree network form being blown up.  It wasn't until the planetary consciousness in the trees decided it was time to join the fight by throwing every living weapon at it's disposal at the enemy that the tides turned.  If Jake and Co. hadn't been able to stop the bomber I am sure that Eywa would have been damaged, but not crippled, and it would most certainly have retaliated in a way the humans were not fully prepared for.  The interesting thing is why did Eywa allow the humans to do as much damage as they did before stomping them flat.  Maybe it's a pacifist at heart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if you noticed , but the human defenders did n't actually contribute that much .
Other than preventing a particularly large node of the planetary tree network form being blown up .
It was n't until the planetary consciousness in the trees decided it was time to join the fight by throwing every living weapon at it 's disposal at the enemy that the tides turned .
If Jake and Co. had n't been able to stop the bomber I am sure that Eywa would have been damaged , but not crippled , and it would most certainly have retaliated in a way the humans were not fully prepared for .
The interesting thing is why did Eywa allow the humans to do as much damage as they did before stomping them flat .
Maybe it 's a pacifist at heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Not sure if you noticed, but the human defenders didn't actually contribute that much.
Other than preventing a particularly large node of the planetary tree network form being blown up.
It wasn't until the planetary consciousness in the trees decided it was time to join the fight by throwing every living weapon at it's disposal at the enemy that the tides turned.
If Jake and Co. hadn't been able to stop the bomber I am sure that Eywa would have been damaged, but not crippled, and it would most certainly have retaliated in a way the humans were not fully prepared for.
The interesting thing is why did Eywa allow the humans to do as much damage as they did before stomping them flat.
Maybe it's a pacifist at heart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30583534</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i for one welcome our new blue avatar overlords in the mist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i for one welcome our new blue avatar overlords in the mist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i for one welcome our new blue avatar overlords in the mist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571670</id>
	<title>Re:Silly, Infantile Discussion</title>
	<author>ThePengwin</author>
	<datestamp>1262018940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* Look, Internet!  Now I can communicate broadly.<br>* Look, Internet! now i can troll people and start flame wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Look , Internet !
Now I can communicate broadly .
* Look , Internet !
now i can troll people and start flame wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Look, Internet!
Now I can communicate broadly.
* Look, Internet!
now i can troll people and start flame wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571272</id>
	<title>Anti-technology themes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262016900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I also detected scathing anti-original storytelling themes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I also detected scathing anti-original storytelling themes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... I also detected scathing anti-original storytelling themes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571882</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262019960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whatever, the native americans that the europeans took the land from were hardly the first "native americans" they were just tribes that were the current winners of the tribal wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whatever , the native americans that the europeans took the land from were hardly the first " native americans " they were just tribes that were the current winners of the tribal wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whatever, the native americans that the europeans took the land from were hardly the first "native americans" they were just tribes that were the current winners of the tribal wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571364</id>
	<title>Greed is the message</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262017260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the movie message is pretty obvious. Its about human greed. Whenever it suited us the opposing culture was crushed by the massive weight of the technological advanced civilization and all this to take control of a valuable resource. Be it the Spanish literally destroying the Inca civilization over night because of gold. Or the native Americans conflict. We always invented excuses for this. But most of this excuses bow down to one thing. We wanted something that was on their territory. And frankly we haven't changed a bit.<br>As we still find excuses to wage war one places that are rich with resources or that are in a strategic position. And who ever is in the way is simply destroyed. I don't see the movie as being technology vs nature.<br>Technology is neither good or bad. But it can be used in a good way or a bad way. I think the movie is more about human greed vs the right and ethical position. In a way what Cameron wants people to understand is that more often than it should we put human greed above the right thing to do.<br>And in fact we have a pretty recent example. And that is the failure of the last climate change talks. Truth is everyone knew the talks were going to fail even before they started.<br>And taking this into count. The movie ending is all about "nature" fighting back. To put it in another away. Our greed may take us to our doom. While the world powers "live" on top of the big guns, the big companies and so on, and we keep on dismissing very important signs, we may one day wake up and realize that our planet is taking a much more drastic change than we though. And guess what? It doesn't really care if you're the most powerfull man on earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the movie message is pretty obvious .
Its about human greed .
Whenever it suited us the opposing culture was crushed by the massive weight of the technological advanced civilization and all this to take control of a valuable resource .
Be it the Spanish literally destroying the Inca civilization over night because of gold .
Or the native Americans conflict .
We always invented excuses for this .
But most of this excuses bow down to one thing .
We wanted something that was on their territory .
And frankly we have n't changed a bit.As we still find excuses to wage war one places that are rich with resources or that are in a strategic position .
And who ever is in the way is simply destroyed .
I do n't see the movie as being technology vs nature.Technology is neither good or bad .
But it can be used in a good way or a bad way .
I think the movie is more about human greed vs the right and ethical position .
In a way what Cameron wants people to understand is that more often than it should we put human greed above the right thing to do.And in fact we have a pretty recent example .
And that is the failure of the last climate change talks .
Truth is everyone knew the talks were going to fail even before they started.And taking this into count .
The movie ending is all about " nature " fighting back .
To put it in another away .
Our greed may take us to our doom .
While the world powers " live " on top of the big guns , the big companies and so on , and we keep on dismissing very important signs , we may one day wake up and realize that our planet is taking a much more drastic change than we though .
And guess what ?
It does n't really care if you 're the most powerfull man on earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the movie message is pretty obvious.
Its about human greed.
Whenever it suited us the opposing culture was crushed by the massive weight of the technological advanced civilization and all this to take control of a valuable resource.
Be it the Spanish literally destroying the Inca civilization over night because of gold.
Or the native Americans conflict.
We always invented excuses for this.
But most of this excuses bow down to one thing.
We wanted something that was on their territory.
And frankly we haven't changed a bit.As we still find excuses to wage war one places that are rich with resources or that are in a strategic position.
And who ever is in the way is simply destroyed.
I don't see the movie as being technology vs nature.Technology is neither good or bad.
But it can be used in a good way or a bad way.
I think the movie is more about human greed vs the right and ethical position.
In a way what Cameron wants people to understand is that more often than it should we put human greed above the right thing to do.And in fact we have a pretty recent example.
And that is the failure of the last climate change talks.
Truth is everyone knew the talks were going to fail even before they started.And taking this into count.
The movie ending is all about "nature" fighting back.
To put it in another away.
Our greed may take us to our doom.
While the world powers "live" on top of the big guns, the big companies and so on, and we keep on dismissing very important signs, we may one day wake up and realize that our planet is taking a much more drastic change than we though.
And guess what?
It doesn't really care if you're the most powerfull man on earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577346</id>
	<title>Where's Willie Nelson ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262005260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, despite seeing a the Metal Hurlant 'fantasy planet' genre familiarity, I couldn't shake that Harry Harrison "Bill The Galactic Hero" feeling. As if he/it were staring at me from somewhere in the aisles. I kept looking for the snake that would swallow the antagonist at the most difficult moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , despite seeing a the Metal Hurlant 'fantasy planet ' genre familiarity , I could n't shake that Harry Harrison " Bill The Galactic Hero " feeling .
As if he/it were staring at me from somewhere in the aisles .
I kept looking for the snake that would swallow the antagonist at the most difficult moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, despite seeing a the Metal Hurlant 'fantasy planet' genre familiarity, I couldn't shake that Harry Harrison "Bill The Galactic Hero" feeling.
As if he/it were staring at me from somewhere in the aisles.
I kept looking for the snake that would swallow the antagonist at the most difficult moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571998</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1262020560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the script for this film has been floating around for longer than the Iraq war, I believe.</p><p>I think it's simply that the pattern of Imperialism is what it is.  Predictable and tragic.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the script for this film has been floating around for longer than the Iraq war , I believe.I think it 's simply that the pattern of Imperialism is what it is .
Predictable and tragic.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the script for this film has been floating around for longer than the Iraq war, I believe.I think it's simply that the pattern of Imperialism is what it is.
Predictable and tragic.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577332</id>
	<title>When will you get it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262005140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Iraq invasion wasn't about stealing Iraq's oil. The Iraq invasion was about preventing the Iraqi oil bourse from trading in Euros instead of Dollars.</p><p>MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Iraq invasion was n't about stealing Iraq 's oil .
The Iraq invasion was about preventing the Iraqi oil bourse from trading in Euros instead of Dollars.MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Iraq invasion wasn't about stealing Iraq's oil.
The Iraq invasion was about preventing the Iraqi oil bourse from trading in Euros instead of Dollars.MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571680</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1262019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it.  In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this.  Not my thing.</p>  </div><p>In your post you never say WHY this isn't your thing.  Color me curious.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you remember "Dances with Wolves" at all, its about an American military officer just after the Civil War who goes out to a frontier post and then ends up making friends with the Indians, and then helping them against a later invasion to attempt to drive them out onto a reservation type situation.  Here, the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.</p></div><p>And do you assume this is the first film ever to recycle a plot?  Not even Shakespeare's works were original.  I'm not quite getting the point here.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This seems to be more like some sort of post-colonial clap-trap than an "anti-technology" film</p></div><p>Hmm...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Claptrap:  Pretentious, insincere, or empty language</p></div><p>So I guess you're going with pretentious?  Or insincere?  Empty?  I'm again not getting the message you're attempting to transmit.  The allegory is clear enough.  They even named the mineral 'unobtanium' for crying out loud.  Do you just not like fairy tales?  Or do you disagree that colonization tends to be very, very bad for the indigenous?  Or are the indigenous not entitled to view themselves through rose-colored glasses?  Does that right only go to the victors in a conflict?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>of course the two things usually go hand-in-hand when perpetrating the myth of the noble savage.</p></div><p>I'm not certain how this perpetuates a myth.  Of course I'm not willing to ascribe nobility to an entire group of people.  We are individuals, after all, with varying standards.  Likewise I'm not willing to preclude nobility from an entire group.  Some were some weren't, and I don't find that notion all that mythological.</p><p>So to sum up, please explain, because I have failed in your assumption that I would automatically know what you're talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it .
In fact , I just generally do n't like any movie like this .
Not my thing .
In your post you never say WHY this is n't your thing .
Color me curious.If you remember " Dances with Wolves " at all , its about an American military officer just after the Civil War who goes out to a frontier post and then ends up making friends with the Indians , and then helping them against a later invasion to attempt to drive them out onto a reservation type situation .
Here , the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.And do you assume this is the first film ever to recycle a plot ?
Not even Shakespeare 's works were original .
I 'm not quite getting the point here.This seems to be more like some sort of post-colonial clap-trap than an " anti-technology " filmHmm...Claptrap : Pretentious , insincere , or empty languageSo I guess you 're going with pretentious ?
Or insincere ?
Empty ? I 'm again not getting the message you 're attempting to transmit .
The allegory is clear enough .
They even named the mineral 'unobtanium ' for crying out loud .
Do you just not like fairy tales ?
Or do you disagree that colonization tends to be very , very bad for the indigenous ?
Or are the indigenous not entitled to view themselves through rose-colored glasses ?
Does that right only go to the victors in a conflict ? of course the two things usually go hand-in-hand when perpetrating the myth of the noble savage.I 'm not certain how this perpetuates a myth .
Of course I 'm not willing to ascribe nobility to an entire group of people .
We are individuals , after all , with varying standards .
Likewise I 'm not willing to preclude nobility from an entire group .
Some were some were n't , and I do n't find that notion all that mythological.So to sum up , please explain , because I have failed in your assumption that I would automatically know what you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it.
In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this.
Not my thing.
In your post you never say WHY this isn't your thing.
Color me curious.If you remember "Dances with Wolves" at all, its about an American military officer just after the Civil War who goes out to a frontier post and then ends up making friends with the Indians, and then helping them against a later invasion to attempt to drive them out onto a reservation type situation.
Here, the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.And do you assume this is the first film ever to recycle a plot?
Not even Shakespeare's works were original.
I'm not quite getting the point here.This seems to be more like some sort of post-colonial clap-trap than an "anti-technology" filmHmm...Claptrap:  Pretentious, insincere, or empty languageSo I guess you're going with pretentious?
Or insincere?
Empty?  I'm again not getting the message you're attempting to transmit.
The allegory is clear enough.
They even named the mineral 'unobtanium' for crying out loud.
Do you just not like fairy tales?
Or do you disagree that colonization tends to be very, very bad for the indigenous?
Or are the indigenous not entitled to view themselves through rose-colored glasses?
Does that right only go to the victors in a conflict?of course the two things usually go hand-in-hand when perpetrating the myth of the noble savage.I'm not certain how this perpetuates a myth.
Of course I'm not willing to ascribe nobility to an entire group of people.
We are individuals, after all, with varying standards.
Likewise I'm not willing to preclude nobility from an entire group.
Some were some weren't, and I don't find that notion all that mythological.So to sum up, please explain, because I have failed in your assumption that I would automatically know what you're talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30582520</id>
	<title>Don't overanalyze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262105160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story of Avatar was meant as a very simple moral message. It was yet another telling of Native Americans vs. European Invaders with the natives winning this time. It's the kind of thing we've seen a million times before. There's really nothing more to the story of Avatar than that. It's an enjoyable story, and better, even simple as it is, than most dreck out of Hollywood. But everything is laid out so black and white, it's clearly not meant to be deep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story of Avatar was meant as a very simple moral message .
It was yet another telling of Native Americans vs. European Invaders with the natives winning this time .
It 's the kind of thing we 've seen a million times before .
There 's really nothing more to the story of Avatar than that .
It 's an enjoyable story , and better , even simple as it is , than most dreck out of Hollywood .
But everything is laid out so black and white , it 's clearly not meant to be deep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story of Avatar was meant as a very simple moral message.
It was yet another telling of Native Americans vs. European Invaders with the natives winning this time.
It's the kind of thing we've seen a million times before.
There's really nothing more to the story of Avatar than that.
It's an enjoyable story, and better, even simple as it is, than most dreck out of Hollywood.
But everything is laid out so black and white, it's clearly not meant to be deep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571374</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1262017380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Conquistadores were privateers who worked closely with their sovereigns, much like the British, e.g. Sir Walter Raleigh.</p><p>Avatar isn't quite as blatant in it's political message as some movies that claim to be documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and Inconvenient Truth; it's more like the Disney anti-hunting movies (pick pretty much any one). Subliminal messages vs propaganda much like CNN vs. Fox News. I don't know which is worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Conquistadores were privateers who worked closely with their sovereigns , much like the British , e.g .
Sir Walter Raleigh.Avatar is n't quite as blatant in it 's political message as some movies that claim to be documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11 , Sicko , and Inconvenient Truth ; it 's more like the Disney anti-hunting movies ( pick pretty much any one ) .
Subliminal messages vs propaganda much like CNN vs. Fox News .
I do n't know which is worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Conquistadores were privateers who worked closely with their sovereigns, much like the British, e.g.
Sir Walter Raleigh.Avatar isn't quite as blatant in it's political message as some movies that claim to be documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and Inconvenient Truth; it's more like the Disney anti-hunting movies (pick pretty much any one).
Subliminal messages vs propaganda much like CNN vs. Fox News.
I don't know which is worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571638</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>truetorment</author>
	<datestamp>1262018760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "myth" of the noble savage is merely that man is inherently good in nature, and that the evils of modern civilization (in the 17th century...) were the cause of mankind's evil.  In other words, it's not a "myth", it's a philosophical concept.</p><p>
That being said, while the film appears to promote that idea, you say it's "probably a pretty apt sort of representation", but admit that you "generally don't like any movie like this", and that you have no plans to see it.  And more to the point, that you "never had even the slightest interest in it."  In other words, you were predisposed to dislike it, saw a satire of it (South Park) that affirmed your current worldview, and then based your entire opinion of the movie on what *others* have said about it.</p><p>


Always nice to see another analytical thinker here on Slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " myth " of the noble savage is merely that man is inherently good in nature , and that the evils of modern civilization ( in the 17th century... ) were the cause of mankind 's evil .
In other words , it 's not a " myth " , it 's a philosophical concept .
That being said , while the film appears to promote that idea , you say it 's " probably a pretty apt sort of representation " , but admit that you " generally do n't like any movie like this " , and that you have no plans to see it .
And more to the point , that you " never had even the slightest interest in it .
" In other words , you were predisposed to dislike it , saw a satire of it ( South Park ) that affirmed your current worldview , and then based your entire opinion of the movie on what * others * have said about it .
Always nice to see another analytical thinker here on Slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "myth" of the noble savage is merely that man is inherently good in nature, and that the evils of modern civilization (in the 17th century...) were the cause of mankind's evil.
In other words, it's not a "myth", it's a philosophical concept.
That being said, while the film appears to promote that idea, you say it's "probably a pretty apt sort of representation", but admit that you "generally don't like any movie like this", and that you have no plans to see it.
And more to the point, that you "never had even the slightest interest in it.
"  In other words, you were predisposed to dislike it, saw a satire of it (South Park) that affirmed your current worldview, and then based your entire opinion of the movie on what *others* have said about it.
Always nice to see another analytical thinker here on Slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572392</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262022360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tell me, friend, would you rather enjoy 30 free years or 70 in a cage?</p></div><p>That fact that you're posting on Slashdot suggests that you've chosen the 70.  Those who go with the 30 are usually too busy avoiding starvation and disease to worry about making silly ideological arguments on the internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me , friend , would you rather enjoy 30 free years or 70 in a cage ? That fact that you 're posting on Slashdot suggests that you 've chosen the 70 .
Those who go with the 30 are usually too busy avoiding starvation and disease to worry about making silly ideological arguments on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me, friend, would you rather enjoy 30 free years or 70 in a cage?That fact that you're posting on Slashdot suggests that you've chosen the 70.
Those who go with the 30 are usually too busy avoiding starvation and disease to worry about making silly ideological arguments on the internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574816</id>
	<title>Anti-Tech themes?</title>
	<author>lorg</author>
	<datestamp>1262033640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why cant things just be ENTERTAINMENT anymore? Why does there have to be "hidden subtexts" in every single piece of entertainment around, be it music-tv-movies-art-whatever. Nothing can apparently be made just for the pure entertainment anymore. Unless stated, by the writers, before release and review that it is the case all these hidden message stuff is mostly just bollocks and self-deluding interpretations.</p><p>Anti-Tech "themes"? You can pretty much find substance for whatever damn "themes" you please in that movie concidering its lenght if you just look hard enough.</p><p>But technology wise as a product it was "check out the cool stuff we can do now! - a three hour tribute to technology". With enough cash and the computing power it buys this is now what we can do. If you want to talk about the story or moral of the movie it was as far as I'm concerned not about anti-tech at all. It wasn't the technology that made the humans "evil". If anything it was a story about power and greed and the bad stuff following in its wake. The possible outcome of coveting and trying to grab other peoples stuff -- be they here on earth or giant blue aliens on a planet far far away.</p><p>But what is really asked of us here is that we should belive that the writers that couldn't even come up with a better name then "Unobtainium" for their rare and super expensive ore have the depth for putting hidden anti-tech and pro treehugging messages in their movie? Well atleast they didn't call it greedium, but I guess that would have been to obivous.</p><p>If one want to go into things that didn't make sense in the movie tho I think the list can be made long. Such as; Why did the robot/exo-skeleton have a knife? It had the servo and shock absorption to jump from a "helicopter" (that looked more like a flying barn) and could break stuff left and right like it was twigs but had to pull out a knife? How and why did the stone/mountains fly/hover like that? Why was every single piece of vegetation glowing in the dark? What would be the biological benefit of that? Are the plants afraid of the dark? I guess the last two was cause they could and it looked cool. So upon nothing that I think you shouldn't read to much into anything but just enjoy it for the fun movie experience that it was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why cant things just be ENTERTAINMENT anymore ?
Why does there have to be " hidden subtexts " in every single piece of entertainment around , be it music-tv-movies-art-whatever .
Nothing can apparently be made just for the pure entertainment anymore .
Unless stated , by the writers , before release and review that it is the case all these hidden message stuff is mostly just bollocks and self-deluding interpretations.Anti-Tech " themes " ?
You can pretty much find substance for whatever damn " themes " you please in that movie concidering its lenght if you just look hard enough.But technology wise as a product it was " check out the cool stuff we can do now !
- a three hour tribute to technology " .
With enough cash and the computing power it buys this is now what we can do .
If you want to talk about the story or moral of the movie it was as far as I 'm concerned not about anti-tech at all .
It was n't the technology that made the humans " evil " .
If anything it was a story about power and greed and the bad stuff following in its wake .
The possible outcome of coveting and trying to grab other peoples stuff -- be they here on earth or giant blue aliens on a planet far far away.But what is really asked of us here is that we should belive that the writers that could n't even come up with a better name then " Unobtainium " for their rare and super expensive ore have the depth for putting hidden anti-tech and pro treehugging messages in their movie ?
Well atleast they did n't call it greedium , but I guess that would have been to obivous.If one want to go into things that did n't make sense in the movie tho I think the list can be made long .
Such as ; Why did the robot/exo-skeleton have a knife ?
It had the servo and shock absorption to jump from a " helicopter " ( that looked more like a flying barn ) and could break stuff left and right like it was twigs but had to pull out a knife ?
How and why did the stone/mountains fly/hover like that ?
Why was every single piece of vegetation glowing in the dark ?
What would be the biological benefit of that ?
Are the plants afraid of the dark ?
I guess the last two was cause they could and it looked cool .
So upon nothing that I think you should n't read to much into anything but just enjoy it for the fun movie experience that it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why cant things just be ENTERTAINMENT anymore?
Why does there have to be "hidden subtexts" in every single piece of entertainment around, be it music-tv-movies-art-whatever.
Nothing can apparently be made just for the pure entertainment anymore.
Unless stated, by the writers, before release and review that it is the case all these hidden message stuff is mostly just bollocks and self-deluding interpretations.Anti-Tech "themes"?
You can pretty much find substance for whatever damn "themes" you please in that movie concidering its lenght if you just look hard enough.But technology wise as a product it was "check out the cool stuff we can do now!
- a three hour tribute to technology".
With enough cash and the computing power it buys this is now what we can do.
If you want to talk about the story or moral of the movie it was as far as I'm concerned not about anti-tech at all.
It wasn't the technology that made the humans "evil".
If anything it was a story about power and greed and the bad stuff following in its wake.
The possible outcome of coveting and trying to grab other peoples stuff -- be they here on earth or giant blue aliens on a planet far far away.But what is really asked of us here is that we should belive that the writers that couldn't even come up with a better name then "Unobtainium" for their rare and super expensive ore have the depth for putting hidden anti-tech and pro treehugging messages in their movie?
Well atleast they didn't call it greedium, but I guess that would have been to obivous.If one want to go into things that didn't make sense in the movie tho I think the list can be made long.
Such as; Why did the robot/exo-skeleton have a knife?
It had the servo and shock absorption to jump from a "helicopter" (that looked more like a flying barn) and could break stuff left and right like it was twigs but had to pull out a knife?
How and why did the stone/mountains fly/hover like that?
Why was every single piece of vegetation glowing in the dark?
What would be the biological benefit of that?
Are the plants afraid of the dark?
I guess the last two was cause they could and it looked cool.
So upon nothing that I think you shouldn't read to much into anything but just enjoy it for the fun movie experience that it was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30586598</id>
	<title>Re:Assuming Facts Not In Evidence</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1262081460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Since the whole planet was toxic anyway, if they REALLY needed the ore that much they'd just nerve gas the entire area.</i> <p>

The crooks in the government are not handing out WMDs to their crooked corporate buddies. No way. That'd be like screaming "Get rid of me, and hit me with this stick I give you.".</p><p>
Besides, the point was to get the Na'Vi to move away without killing every single one of them. Remember how Quaritch did \_not\_ give an order to gun down the Na'Vi on the ground, even when they undoubtedly attacked the Dragon? I'm sure the defensive systems of the Dragon would have eradicated the entire tribe even faster than a load of nerve gas, at the touch of a button.</p><p>

<i>They'd also not do their bombing runs at 25mph and 100 feet of altitude.</i> </p><p>

Since their "bombs" were improvised devices built with mining explosives, I doubt that they'd make a very effective weapon when dropped from 30000 feet moving at close to mach 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the whole planet was toxic anyway , if they REALLY needed the ore that much they 'd just nerve gas the entire area .
The crooks in the government are not handing out WMDs to their crooked corporate buddies .
No way .
That 'd be like screaming " Get rid of me , and hit me with this stick I give you. " .
Besides , the point was to get the Na'Vi to move away without killing every single one of them .
Remember how Quaritch did \ _not \ _ give an order to gun down the Na'Vi on the ground , even when they undoubtedly attacked the Dragon ?
I 'm sure the defensive systems of the Dragon would have eradicated the entire tribe even faster than a load of nerve gas , at the touch of a button .
They 'd also not do their bombing runs at 25mph and 100 feet of altitude .
Since their " bombs " were improvised devices built with mining explosives , I doubt that they 'd make a very effective weapon when dropped from 30000 feet moving at close to mach 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the whole planet was toxic anyway, if they REALLY needed the ore that much they'd just nerve gas the entire area.
The crooks in the government are not handing out WMDs to their crooked corporate buddies.
No way.
That'd be like screaming "Get rid of me, and hit me with this stick I give you.".
Besides, the point was to get the Na'Vi to move away without killing every single one of them.
Remember how Quaritch did \_not\_ give an order to gun down the Na'Vi on the ground, even when they undoubtedly attacked the Dragon?
I'm sure the defensive systems of the Dragon would have eradicated the entire tribe even faster than a load of nerve gas, at the touch of a button.
They'd also not do their bombing runs at 25mph and 100 feet of altitude.
Since their "bombs" were improvised devices built with mining explosives, I doubt that they'd make a very effective weapon when dropped from 30000 feet moving at close to mach 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30582916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572446</id>
	<title>ANSWER</title>
	<author>avandesande</author>
	<datestamp>1262022600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie, and why are we drawn to it? </i></p><p>Because people lap this **** up.</p><p>I will be collecting my 100\% discount on this movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is two-fold : why have a technically sophisticated , anti-technical movie , and why are we drawn to it ?
Because people lap this * * * * up.I will be collecting my 100 \ % discount on this movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie, and why are we drawn to it?
Because people lap this **** up.I will be collecting my 100\% discount on this movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571716</id>
	<title>Re:it's called "entertainment"</title>
	<author>dhermann</author>
	<datestamp>1262019120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem lies in the fact that Avatar is so close to moving from a "good" movie to a "great" one. When Cameron writes a script with such a singular, juvenile perspective on strip mining for minerals, it's frustrating because it's dumbed down for... I'm not sure. Are morons a key target demographic now? Even kids could understand this concept. In any case, the villain is practically copied from a Captain Planet episode.</p><p>The question shouldn't be: Why does Avatar portray a technologically-advanced society negatively and a savage society positively, but why doesn't Avatar equalize the conflict by adding an appeal by Parker (the corporate goon) about the uses of unobtainium (P.S. unobtain-- ohhhhhh, I see what you did there). Just add some shots of sick kids or a barren wasteland on Earth and a heartfelt monologue about how badly the humans need the mineral, and the physical conflict in the movie becomes a moral conflict with infinitely more meaning. Make Sully a real character with some internal emotions while you're there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem lies in the fact that Avatar is so close to moving from a " good " movie to a " great " one .
When Cameron writes a script with such a singular , juvenile perspective on strip mining for minerals , it 's frustrating because it 's dumbed down for... I 'm not sure .
Are morons a key target demographic now ?
Even kids could understand this concept .
In any case , the villain is practically copied from a Captain Planet episode.The question should n't be : Why does Avatar portray a technologically-advanced society negatively and a savage society positively , but why does n't Avatar equalize the conflict by adding an appeal by Parker ( the corporate goon ) about the uses of unobtainium ( P.S .
unobtain-- ohhhhhh , I see what you did there ) .
Just add some shots of sick kids or a barren wasteland on Earth and a heartfelt monologue about how badly the humans need the mineral , and the physical conflict in the movie becomes a moral conflict with infinitely more meaning .
Make Sully a real character with some internal emotions while you 're there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem lies in the fact that Avatar is so close to moving from a "good" movie to a "great" one.
When Cameron writes a script with such a singular, juvenile perspective on strip mining for minerals, it's frustrating because it's dumbed down for... I'm not sure.
Are morons a key target demographic now?
Even kids could understand this concept.
In any case, the villain is practically copied from a Captain Planet episode.The question shouldn't be: Why does Avatar portray a technologically-advanced society negatively and a savage society positively, but why doesn't Avatar equalize the conflict by adding an appeal by Parker (the corporate goon) about the uses of unobtainium (P.S.
unobtain-- ohhhhhh, I see what you did there).
Just add some shots of sick kids or a barren wasteland on Earth and a heartfelt monologue about how badly the humans need the mineral, and the physical conflict in the movie becomes a moral conflict with infinitely more meaning.
Make Sully a real character with some internal emotions while you're there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576270</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>jmyers</author>
	<datestamp>1261997760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The movie is just an action/romance/comedy movie plot. There are obvious historical references with native Americans. etc. there to help pull the audience in and give them characters they can relate to. What makes the movie notable is that the special effects blur the line between animation and live action in a way not seen in previous movies.</p><p>I know all of the hype and trailers are trying to show off the special effects, but after about the first 5 minutes the special effects are no longer much of a factor in the experience of watching the movie. When I walked out of the movie with my group no one was marveling over the special effects, they were relating to the characters and plot. This is where special effects have done their job and not overpowered the movie itself.</p><p>I don't think there is a great lesson of humanity or technology intended. The movie is pure entertainment. I believe the simple plot was chosen because it is known to work for a wide audience. To have a complex plot plus a lot of new and unproven special effects could have lead to a box office disaster.</p><p>The reason for a geek to watch this movie is to have a historical reference of how and when this movie making technology went mainstream and to maybe have a nice date with your girlfriend. Over the next few years many movies will be made using similar technology. Most likely ones with better plots and more interesting animation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The movie is just an action/romance/comedy movie plot .
There are obvious historical references with native Americans .
etc. there to help pull the audience in and give them characters they can relate to .
What makes the movie notable is that the special effects blur the line between animation and live action in a way not seen in previous movies.I know all of the hype and trailers are trying to show off the special effects , but after about the first 5 minutes the special effects are no longer much of a factor in the experience of watching the movie .
When I walked out of the movie with my group no one was marveling over the special effects , they were relating to the characters and plot .
This is where special effects have done their job and not overpowered the movie itself.I do n't think there is a great lesson of humanity or technology intended .
The movie is pure entertainment .
I believe the simple plot was chosen because it is known to work for a wide audience .
To have a complex plot plus a lot of new and unproven special effects could have lead to a box office disaster.The reason for a geek to watch this movie is to have a historical reference of how and when this movie making technology went mainstream and to maybe have a nice date with your girlfriend .
Over the next few years many movies will be made using similar technology .
Most likely ones with better plots and more interesting animation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The movie is just an action/romance/comedy movie plot.
There are obvious historical references with native Americans.
etc. there to help pull the audience in and give them characters they can relate to.
What makes the movie notable is that the special effects blur the line between animation and live action in a way not seen in previous movies.I know all of the hype and trailers are trying to show off the special effects, but after about the first 5 minutes the special effects are no longer much of a factor in the experience of watching the movie.
When I walked out of the movie with my group no one was marveling over the special effects, they were relating to the characters and plot.
This is where special effects have done their job and not overpowered the movie itself.I don't think there is a great lesson of humanity or technology intended.
The movie is pure entertainment.
I believe the simple plot was chosen because it is known to work for a wide audience.
To have a complex plot plus a lot of new and unproven special effects could have lead to a box office disaster.The reason for a geek to watch this movie is to have a historical reference of how and when this movie making technology went mainstream and to maybe have a nice date with your girlfriend.
Over the next few years many movies will be made using similar technology.
Most likely ones with better plots and more interesting animation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577286</id>
	<title>Humanoiides Associees ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262004780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US-made Metal Hurlant ?</p><p>This had a great <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070544/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">"Planete</a> [imdb.com] <a href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic\_Planet" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Sauvage"</a> [slashdot.org] flavor to it. Bilal, Moebius, Segrelles, all come to mind. The Humano&#239;des gang and their spiritual kindred and general spawn... And a whole unending fountain of diverse but familiar oeuvres since then. Usually characterized by refined, intricate and tasteful artwork. On the manga front, Miyazaki and others : Nausicaa, Totoro, Laputa, Memories, Blue Submarine, etc.</p><p>The list increases greatly if perfect artwork can be slightly overlooked. As in Blue Gender, for example.</p><p>Of course, being US-made, its about soldiers, war, aggression, etc. But then, even The Good Doctor 'fessed up to something similar - early in his days.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US-made Metal Hurlant ? This had a great " Planete [ imdb.com ] Sauvage " [ slashdot.org ] flavor to it .
Bilal , Moebius , Segrelles , all come to mind .
The Humano   des gang and their spiritual kindred and general spawn... And a whole unending fountain of diverse but familiar oeuvres since then .
Usually characterized by refined , intricate and tasteful artwork .
On the manga front , Miyazaki and others : Nausicaa , Totoro , Laputa , Memories , Blue Submarine , etc.The list increases greatly if perfect artwork can be slightly overlooked .
As in Blue Gender , for example.Of course , being US-made , its about soldiers , war , aggression , etc .
But then , even The Good Doctor 'fessed up to something similar - early in his days .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>US-made Metal Hurlant ?This had a great "Planete [imdb.com] Sauvage" [slashdot.org] flavor to it.
Bilal, Moebius, Segrelles, all come to mind.
The Humanoïdes gang and their spiritual kindred and general spawn... And a whole unending fountain of diverse but familiar oeuvres since then.
Usually characterized by refined, intricate and tasteful artwork.
On the manga front, Miyazaki and others : Nausicaa, Totoro, Laputa, Memories, Blue Submarine, etc.The list increases greatly if perfect artwork can be slightly overlooked.
As in Blue Gender, for example.Of course, being US-made, its about soldiers, war, aggression, etc.
But then, even The Good Doctor 'fessed up to something similar - early in his days.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571042</id>
	<title>Duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262015580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em> The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie</em></p><p>There's only one answer to the following, and its an obvious one: For the money. You can make a lot of money with movies that demonize people that value money. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is two-fold : why have a technically sophisticated , anti-technical movieThere 's only one answer to the following , and its an obvious one : For the money .
You can make a lot of money with movies that demonize people that value money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movieThere's only one answer to the following, and its an obvious one: For the money.
You can make a lot of money with movies that demonize people that value money. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573086</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1262025240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a "people who try to take things from others by force suck" movie.</p></div><p>It's an anti-socialist movie?  Hm, maybe I might get around to seeing it sometime then.  Regardless of the "moral of the story", it doesn't look worth paying $10 to see.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a " people who try to take things from others by force suck " movie.It 's an anti-socialist movie ?
Hm , maybe I might get around to seeing it sometime then .
Regardless of the " moral of the story " , it does n't look worth paying $ 10 to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a "people who try to take things from others by force suck" movie.It's an anti-socialist movie?
Hm, maybe I might get around to seeing it sometime then.
Regardless of the "moral of the story", it doesn't look worth paying $10 to see.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571302</id>
	<title>Story is also pro-science</title>
	<author>Traa</author>
	<datestamp>1262017020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the story the (good) scientists lose against the (bad) profit-over-anything-corporate backed "private" military. The indigenous where caught in the middle without a say. That message was so obvious it wasn't much of a political statement as it was an easy good guys vs bad guys setup.</p><p>But that is not why I enjoyed this must see movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the story the ( good ) scientists lose against the ( bad ) profit-over-anything-corporate backed " private " military .
The indigenous where caught in the middle without a say .
That message was so obvious it was n't much of a political statement as it was an easy good guys vs bad guys setup.But that is not why I enjoyed this must see movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the story the (good) scientists lose against the (bad) profit-over-anything-corporate backed "private" military.
The indigenous where caught in the middle without a say.
That message was so obvious it wasn't much of a political statement as it was an easy good guys vs bad guys setup.But that is not why I enjoyed this must see movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571658</id>
	<title>Just found it!</title>
	<author>gregarican</author>
	<datestamp>1262018880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is <a href="http://needlenose.com/i/gb/stuartsmalley.jpg" title="needlenose.com">James Cameron's "avatar"</a> [needlenose.com]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is James Cameron 's " avatar " [ needlenose.com ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is James Cameron's "avatar" [needlenose.com]...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30581516</id>
	<title>The biosphere *IS* technology guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262098620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like biology.</p><p>Biology is nano-tech on a massive scale. We have yet to decipher a cell. The movie posits a planet-wide neural net mediated through tree routes with intelligent nodes (their sacred place) and mobile probes (the little jellyfish thingys that surround Jack Sully and convince Natiri not to kill him).</p><p>The movie may be sort of against crude, badly managed technology, but that's all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like biology.Biology is nano-tech on a massive scale .
We have yet to decipher a cell .
The movie posits a planet-wide neural net mediated through tree routes with intelligent nodes ( their sacred place ) and mobile probes ( the little jellyfish thingys that surround Jack Sully and convince Natiri not to kill him ) .The movie may be sort of against crude , badly managed technology , but that 's all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like biology.Biology is nano-tech on a massive scale.
We have yet to decipher a cell.
The movie posits a planet-wide neural net mediated through tree routes with intelligent nodes (their sacred place) and mobile probes (the little jellyfish thingys that surround Jack Sully and convince Natiri not to kill him).The movie may be sort of against crude, badly managed technology, but that's all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572932</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The savage lacks the resources to keep unproductive people alive. Old people would be sent off to die, as would people who couldn't contribute due to a disease. In any case the Smurfs were NOT all peace loving in the movie. In the scene where the protagonist is attempting to fly, his rival is clearly rooting for him to die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The savage lacks the resources to keep unproductive people alive .
Old people would be sent off to die , as would people who could n't contribute due to a disease .
In any case the Smurfs were NOT all peace loving in the movie .
In the scene where the protagonist is attempting to fly , his rival is clearly rooting for him to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The savage lacks the resources to keep unproductive people alive.
Old people would be sent off to die, as would people who couldn't contribute due to a disease.
In any case the Smurfs were NOT all peace loving in the movie.
In the scene where the protagonist is attempting to fly, his rival is clearly rooting for him to die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574046</id>
	<title>Plot Tweaks i'd have done</title>
	<author>aapold</author>
	<datestamp>1262029800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enjoyed it a ton, but... A few tweaks would have elevated it overall greatly to me:

<ul>
<li>1 - When that guy disconnects Jake's avatar, Jake (in his real body) manages to crawl to a gun and shoot him.</li><li>2 - Aiwa (sp?) hive mind manages to chemically transform unobtainium into uselesscrapium, thus removing the reason to remove the natives.</li><li>3 - The mutinous pilot girl still disobeys orders, but doesn't go as far as killing her fellow soldiers.</li><li>4 - they explain how it is that avatar units can transmit from their base or trailer, yet no other signal can get through.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enjoyed it a ton , but... A few tweaks would have elevated it overall greatly to me : 1 - When that guy disconnects Jake 's avatar , Jake ( in his real body ) manages to crawl to a gun and shoot him.2 - Aiwa ( sp ?
) hive mind manages to chemically transform unobtainium into uselesscrapium , thus removing the reason to remove the natives.3 - The mutinous pilot girl still disobeys orders , but does n't go as far as killing her fellow soldiers.4 - they explain how it is that avatar units can transmit from their base or trailer , yet no other signal can get through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enjoyed it a ton, but... A few tweaks would have elevated it overall greatly to me:


1 - When that guy disconnects Jake's avatar, Jake (in his real body) manages to crawl to a gun and shoot him.2 - Aiwa (sp?
) hive mind manages to chemically transform unobtainium into uselesscrapium, thus removing the reason to remove the natives.3 - The mutinous pilot girl still disobeys orders, but doesn't go as far as killing her fellow soldiers.4 - they explain how it is that avatar units can transmit from their base or trailer, yet no other signal can get through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570796</id>
	<title>glass half empty or half full?</title>
	<author>S. Allen</author>
	<datestamp>1262014380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you've chosen to cast this in a negative light as against something.  the alternative view is that is is promoting a more rational approach to resource utilization.  the easiest way to demonstrate this is using something you can relate to: our own behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 've chosen to cast this in a negative light as against something .
the alternative view is that is is promoting a more rational approach to resource utilization .
the easiest way to demonstrate this is using something you can relate to : our own behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you've chosen to cast this in a negative light as against something.
the alternative view is that is is promoting a more rational approach to resource utilization.
the easiest way to demonstrate this is using something you can relate to: our own behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575116</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>MaXintosh</author>
	<datestamp>1261992000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. This is my big problem. In essence, the white guy uses his mega-awesome white guy abilities and saves the in tune with nature natives from the other whiteguys. So, it's Dances with Wolves without the one element that made Dances with Wolves worth watching. What's awful is it totally misses what made Dances with Wolves not suck, and it went right for a whole load of imperialistic garbage. The dialog would have to be really ****ing good to make up for "white-guy-proxy is now king-of-the-tribe and will lead the natives to salvation."<br> <br>Cameron would have to be really tone deaf to miss how offensive that message might be. Given, in the real world, the wise benevolent leadership of white males has been historically less than kind to Natives.<br>There might be hope, though. I haven't heard of a single review that comments positively on the film's plot. If people like it, it's because of the eyecandy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
This is my big problem .
In essence , the white guy uses his mega-awesome white guy abilities and saves the in tune with nature natives from the other whiteguys .
So , it 's Dances with Wolves without the one element that made Dances with Wolves worth watching .
What 's awful is it totally misses what made Dances with Wolves not suck , and it went right for a whole load of imperialistic garbage .
The dialog would have to be really * * * * ing good to make up for " white-guy-proxy is now king-of-the-tribe and will lead the natives to salvation .
" Cameron would have to be really tone deaf to miss how offensive that message might be .
Given , in the real world , the wise benevolent leadership of white males has been historically less than kind to Natives.There might be hope , though .
I have n't heard of a single review that comments positively on the film 's plot .
If people like it , it 's because of the eyecandy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
This is my big problem.
In essence, the white guy uses his mega-awesome white guy abilities and saves the in tune with nature natives from the other whiteguys.
So, it's Dances with Wolves without the one element that made Dances with Wolves worth watching.
What's awful is it totally misses what made Dances with Wolves not suck, and it went right for a whole load of imperialistic garbage.
The dialog would have to be really ****ing good to make up for "white-guy-proxy is now king-of-the-tribe and will lead the natives to salvation.
" Cameron would have to be really tone deaf to miss how offensive that message might be.
Given, in the real world, the wise benevolent leadership of white males has been historically less than kind to Natives.There might be hope, though.
I haven't heard of a single review that comments positively on the film's plot.
If people like it, it's because of the eyecandy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573358</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You misspelled LIBERAL Guilt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You misspelled LIBERAL Guilt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You misspelled LIBERAL Guilt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573958</id>
	<title>Anti-Technology?? Wrong!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262029320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You guys are all wrong, it was not anti-technology, it was anti-capitalism. Did anyone sense the undertones of the current world wide anti-"terrorism" campaign US is waging? The bottom line is that is was a Neo-Marxist movie, with the main point being that it was Capitalism that destroyed the planet back home and what was responsible for the negative events of the movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys are all wrong , it was not anti-technology , it was anti-capitalism .
Did anyone sense the undertones of the current world wide anti- " terrorism " campaign US is waging ?
The bottom line is that is was a Neo-Marxist movie , with the main point being that it was Capitalism that destroyed the planet back home and what was responsible for the negative events of the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys are all wrong, it was not anti-technology, it was anti-capitalism.
Did anyone sense the undertones of the current world wide anti-"terrorism" campaign US is waging?
The bottom line is that is was a Neo-Marxist movie, with the main point being that it was Capitalism that destroyed the planet back home and what was responsible for the negative events of the movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573000</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil."</p><p>At a price decided by the invader, by introducing a free market system in a socialist-like nation.<br>Otherwise no invasion would have been necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil .
" At a price decided by the invader , by introducing a free market system in a socialist-like nation.Otherwise no invasion would have been necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil.
"At a price decided by the invader, by introducing a free market system in a socialist-like nation.Otherwise no invasion would have been necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573412</id>
	<title>Stephenson</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1262026620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Part of the answer lies in Neal Stephenson's Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Really?  Perhaps someone could enlighten me because I didn't see anything in common between the two articles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the answer lies in Neal Stephenson 's Turn On , Tune In , Veg Out .
" Really ?
Perhaps someone could enlighten me because I did n't see anything in common between the two articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the answer lies in Neal Stephenson's Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out.
"

Really?
Perhaps someone could enlighten me because I didn't see anything in common between the two articles.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572850</id>
	<title>anti-corporate ruthlessness and military arrogance</title>
	<author>heteromonomer</author>
	<datestamp>1262024160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The movie was not anti-technology. I saw the movie. It was about corporate ruthlessness, military arrogance, greed and ignorance. Precisely the kind of stuff that keeps happening around the world. Destroying the environment, biodiversity, dismissing the civilizations you don't understand as subhuman. The kind of stuff that leads to self-righteous stands and declaration of meaningless wars.

Seriously, I expect slashdot to post blogs/articles better than this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The movie was not anti-technology .
I saw the movie .
It was about corporate ruthlessness , military arrogance , greed and ignorance .
Precisely the kind of stuff that keeps happening around the world .
Destroying the environment , biodiversity , dismissing the civilizations you do n't understand as subhuman .
The kind of stuff that leads to self-righteous stands and declaration of meaningless wars .
Seriously , I expect slashdot to post blogs/articles better than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The movie was not anti-technology.
I saw the movie.
It was about corporate ruthlessness, military arrogance, greed and ignorance.
Precisely the kind of stuff that keeps happening around the world.
Destroying the environment, biodiversity, dismissing the civilizations you don't understand as subhuman.
The kind of stuff that leads to self-righteous stands and declaration of meaningless wars.
Seriously, I expect slashdot to post blogs/articles better than this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30626046</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230890760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right. If it's not created by people, then it is not high tech, by definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right .
If it 's not created by people , then it is not high tech , by definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right.
If it's not created by people, then it is not high tech, by definition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30624098</id>
	<title>What kind of person ...</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1230922320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... would say that a movie in which technology allows the hero to travel a few light years \_and\_ get laid by a hot blue-skinned alien is "anti-technology"? These people need to have their heads examined.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<p>
They'd probably say that Star Trek is anti-technology too, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... would say that a movie in which technology allows the hero to travel a few light years \ _and \ _ get laid by a hot blue-skinned alien is " anti-technology " ?
These people need to have their heads examined .
; ) They 'd probably say that Star Trek is anti-technology too , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... would say that a movie in which technology allows the hero to travel a few light years \_and\_ get laid by a hot blue-skinned alien is "anti-technology"?
These people need to have their heads examined.
;)
They'd probably say that Star Trek is anti-technology too, huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571854</id>
	<title>Re:The Anti-American...</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262019840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not anti-American at all.  It's a story.  You might call it anti-colonial, but lots of cultures have had periods where they went out into the world to tame the "savages" and discover "new" lands and take the riches therein.  America did it.  Iraq did it (Kuwait).  Britain did it most extensively in recent memory (India?).  Spain did it, sponsoring Columbus "discovery" of America, to the collective surprise of the people living there.  The Vikings did it a thousand years ago.  Rome did it a thousand years before them.</p><p>If this movie is trying to sell an idea, and I don't think that's really its primary goal, it's that we tend to find ways to justify the strong taking from the weak, and while it usually works, it's morally wrong.  I don't think it's a bad thing at all to remember that the weak are still people, and lives lived differently from ours are no less worth living to the ones living them.</p><p>There should come a time in our development as a civilization where we go beyond beating people up for their lunch money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not anti-American at all .
It 's a story .
You might call it anti-colonial , but lots of cultures have had periods where they went out into the world to tame the " savages " and discover " new " lands and take the riches therein .
America did it .
Iraq did it ( Kuwait ) .
Britain did it most extensively in recent memory ( India ? ) .
Spain did it , sponsoring Columbus " discovery " of America , to the collective surprise of the people living there .
The Vikings did it a thousand years ago .
Rome did it a thousand years before them.If this movie is trying to sell an idea , and I do n't think that 's really its primary goal , it 's that we tend to find ways to justify the strong taking from the weak , and while it usually works , it 's morally wrong .
I do n't think it 's a bad thing at all to remember that the weak are still people , and lives lived differently from ours are no less worth living to the ones living them.There should come a time in our development as a civilization where we go beyond beating people up for their lunch money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not anti-American at all.
It's a story.
You might call it anti-colonial, but lots of cultures have had periods where they went out into the world to tame the "savages" and discover "new" lands and take the riches therein.
America did it.
Iraq did it (Kuwait).
Britain did it most extensively in recent memory (India?).
Spain did it, sponsoring Columbus "discovery" of America, to the collective surprise of the people living there.
The Vikings did it a thousand years ago.
Rome did it a thousand years before them.If this movie is trying to sell an idea, and I don't think that's really its primary goal, it's that we tend to find ways to justify the strong taking from the weak, and while it usually works, it's morally wrong.
I don't think it's a bad thing at all to remember that the weak are still people, and lives lived differently from ours are no less worth living to the ones living them.There should come a time in our development as a civilization where we go beyond beating people up for their lunch money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573604</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're saying the message of the movie isn't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq?</p></div><p>Riiight. When Cameron first wrote his draft of the script in 1994, he intended to predict and condemn US military action a decade in the future. This is clearly the most reasonable interpretation, especially since there are no other examples in all of history of military conquest to relieve indigenous peoples of their natural resources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're saying the message of the movie is n't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq ? Riiight .
When Cameron first wrote his draft of the script in 1994 , he intended to predict and condemn US military action a decade in the future .
This is clearly the most reasonable interpretation , especially since there are no other examples in all of history of military conquest to relieve indigenous peoples of their natural resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're saying the message of the movie isn't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq?Riiight.
When Cameron first wrote his draft of the script in 1994, he intended to predict and condemn US military action a decade in the future.
This is clearly the most reasonable interpretation, especially since there are no other examples in all of history of military conquest to relieve indigenous peoples of their natural resources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574892</id>
	<title>Better than Star Wars</title>
	<author>Neuroelectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1261990920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That hippy propagandist trash, how dare those terrorist rebels attack a peaceful outpost on a forest planet.  Those were our troops who gave their lives for the Empire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That hippy propagandist trash , how dare those terrorist rebels attack a peaceful outpost on a forest planet .
Those were our troops who gave their lives for the Empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That hippy propagandist trash, how dare those terrorist rebels attack a peaceful outpost on a forest planet.
Those were our troops who gave their lives for the Empire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573528</id>
	<title>Re:One doesn't have to be against x to moderate it</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1262027220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neither concrete or steel are sterile. In fact there are few places on this Earth that are sterile without lengthy and time consuming procedures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither concrete or steel are sterile .
In fact there are few places on this Earth that are sterile without lengthy and time consuming procedures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither concrete or steel are sterile.
In fact there are few places on this Earth that are sterile without lengthy and time consuming procedures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571576</id>
	<title>Re:it's called "entertainment"</title>
	<author>INT\_QRK</author>
	<datestamp>1262018460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thirded. If you can't just roll your eyes at the silliness and still allow your self to enjoy the entertainment, then you're missing out on an important spice of life. Willful suspension of disbelief is what keeps society going, and allows democracies to flourish. I know because I sometimes watch CSPAN coverage of Senate debates, which would otherwise cause insanity. Live long and prosper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thirded .
If you ca n't just roll your eyes at the silliness and still allow your self to enjoy the entertainment , then you 're missing out on an important spice of life .
Willful suspension of disbelief is what keeps society going , and allows democracies to flourish .
I know because I sometimes watch CSPAN coverage of Senate debates , which would otherwise cause insanity .
Live long and prosper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thirded.
If you can't just roll your eyes at the silliness and still allow your self to enjoy the entertainment, then you're missing out on an important spice of life.
Willful suspension of disbelief is what keeps society going, and allows democracies to flourish.
I know because I sometimes watch CSPAN coverage of Senate debates, which would otherwise cause insanity.
Live long and prosper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573422</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1262026740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.</p></div></blockquote><p>Assuming nature on other planets is the same as nature on earth.  If the entire planet is alive, then different rules would apply.  No where in the movie did it say "destroying trees is bad".  It said "assuming something on an alien planet that looks like a tree can be treated like a tree" is bad.  If the premise of the movie is that there really is an intelligent, inverventionist planetary intelligence, you should respect that.  While it is a somewhat green message, they eliminated all metaphors by making it movie-true.</p><blockquote><div><p>For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.</p></div></blockquote><p>It only "needs" medicine to prevent death.  If you don't particularly care about death, or view it as acceptable, then you don't "need" the medicine.</p><blockquote><div><p>Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.</p></div></blockquote><p>True.  They didn't leave them alone in the movie either.  They just were easily avoided.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that does n't hold up to close scrutiny.Assuming nature on other planets is the same as nature on earth .
If the entire planet is alive , then different rules would apply .
No where in the movie did it say " destroying trees is bad " .
It said " assuming something on an alien planet that looks like a tree can be treated like a tree " is bad .
If the premise of the movie is that there really is an intelligent , inverventionist planetary intelligence , you should respect that .
While it is a somewhat green message , they eliminated all metaphors by making it movie-true.For instance , what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.It only " needs " medicine to prevent death .
If you do n't particularly care about death , or view it as acceptable , then you do n't " need " the medicine.Also , in the real world packs of wolves and bears do n't just leave you alone.True .
They did n't leave them alone in the movie either .
They just were easily avoided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.Assuming nature on other planets is the same as nature on earth.
If the entire planet is alive, then different rules would apply.
No where in the movie did it say "destroying trees is bad".
It said "assuming something on an alien planet that looks like a tree can be treated like a tree" is bad.
If the premise of the movie is that there really is an intelligent, inverventionist planetary intelligence, you should respect that.
While it is a somewhat green message, they eliminated all metaphors by making it movie-true.For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.It only "needs" medicine to prevent death.
If you don't particularly care about death, or view it as acceptable, then you don't "need" the medicine.Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.True.
They didn't leave them alone in the movie either.
They just were easily avoided.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30653136</id>
	<title>Just you wait...</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1231155660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for the second or third movie when you find out that Eywa is in fact a CPU from some terraforming space ship (containing link equipment) that crashed to the planet and began changing everything about so that all the denizens were able to link, and download/upload with the CPU. Those arches around the soul tree are likely the remains of the ship structure.</p><p>Now go read the Cycle of Fire trilogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janny\_Wurts#The\_Cycle\_of\_Fire\_Trilogy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for the second or third movie when you find out that Eywa is in fact a CPU from some terraforming space ship ( containing link equipment ) that crashed to the planet and began changing everything about so that all the denizens were able to link , and download/upload with the CPU .
Those arches around the soul tree are likely the remains of the ship structure.Now go read the Cycle of Fire trilogy ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janny \ _Wurts # The \ _Cycle \ _of \ _Fire \ _Trilogy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for the second or third movie when you find out that Eywa is in fact a CPU from some terraforming space ship (containing link equipment) that crashed to the planet and began changing everything about so that all the denizens were able to link, and download/upload with the CPU.
Those arches around the soul tree are likely the remains of the ship structure.Now go read the Cycle of Fire trilogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janny\_Wurts#The\_Cycle\_of\_Fire\_Trilogy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572058</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1262020860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it. In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this. Not my thing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, the plot/character development/dialogue isn't really worth the cost of admission.  But it was interesting to see what a huge pudget could do with producing a 3D I-Max.  Anyone who thinks Hollywood is going to die because of the lower cost of video production needs to see this movie.  It's a better future- 2D Hollywood will be replaced by 3D.  Now if they can only figure out how I don't have to keep my head perfectly virtical the whole time.</p><p>But yes, it was Dances with Wolves in space.  No, the blue things aren't at all reminicent of the Smurfs in the movie.  Even the blue is off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it .
In fact , I just generally do n't like any movie like this .
Not my thing.Well , the plot/character development/dialogue is n't really worth the cost of admission .
But it was interesting to see what a huge pudget could do with producing a 3D I-Max .
Anyone who thinks Hollywood is going to die because of the lower cost of video production needs to see this movie .
It 's a better future- 2D Hollywood will be replaced by 3D .
Now if they can only figure out how I do n't have to keep my head perfectly virtical the whole time.But yes , it was Dances with Wolves in space .
No , the blue things are n't at all reminicent of the Smurfs in the movie .
Even the blue is off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it.
In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this.
Not my thing.Well, the plot/character development/dialogue isn't really worth the cost of admission.
But it was interesting to see what a huge pudget could do with producing a 3D I-Max.
Anyone who thinks Hollywood is going to die because of the lower cost of video production needs to see this movie.
It's a better future- 2D Hollywood will be replaced by 3D.
Now if they can only figure out how I don't have to keep my head perfectly virtical the whole time.But yes, it was Dances with Wolves in space.
No, the blue things aren't at all reminicent of the Smurfs in the movie.
Even the blue is off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30595512</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't get "tech is bad" from the movie at all.</title>
	<author>bingoUV</author>
	<datestamp>1259862540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there was a "might makes right" is bad</p></div><p>Remember why the humans left Pandora eventually? It was because of the "might" of the things defending Pandora against humans. So, the movie re-inforces the doctrine - "might makes right".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there was a " might makes right " is badRemember why the humans left Pandora eventually ?
It was because of the " might " of the things defending Pandora against humans .
So , the movie re-inforces the doctrine - " might makes right " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was a "might makes right" is badRemember why the humans left Pandora eventually?
It was because of the "might" of the things defending Pandora against humans.
So, the movie re-inforces the doctrine - "might makes right".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</id>
	<title>Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it.  In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this.  Not my thing.  I do enjoy making fun of it vis-a-vis the "Dances with Smurfs" thing from South Park, but what I've heard about the movie, that's probably a pretty apt sort of representation.<br><br>If you remember "Dances with Wolves" at all, its about an American military officer just after the Civil War who goes out to a frontier post and then ends up making friends with the Indians, and then helping them against a later invasion to attempt to drive them out onto a reservation type situation.  Here, the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.<br><br>As someone noted above, the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental, however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British (I've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not).<br><br>This seems to be more like some sort of post-colonial clap-trap than an "anti-technology" film, of course the two things usually go hand-in-hand when perpetrating the myth of the noble savage.  In any case, I have no interest in actually watching it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it .
In fact , I just generally do n't like any movie like this .
Not my thing .
I do enjoy making fun of it vis-a-vis the " Dances with Smurfs " thing from South Park , but what I 've heard about the movie , that 's probably a pretty apt sort of representation.If you remember " Dances with Wolves " at all , its about an American military officer just after the Civil War who goes out to a frontier post and then ends up making friends with the Indians , and then helping them against a later invasion to attempt to drive them out onto a reservation type situation .
Here , the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.As someone noted above , the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental , however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British ( I 've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not ) .This seems to be more like some sort of post-colonial clap-trap than an " anti-technology " film , of course the two things usually go hand-in-hand when perpetrating the myth of the noble savage .
In any case , I have no interest in actually watching it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it.
In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this.
Not my thing.
I do enjoy making fun of it vis-a-vis the "Dances with Smurfs" thing from South Park, but what I've heard about the movie, that's probably a pretty apt sort of representation.If you remember "Dances with Wolves" at all, its about an American military officer just after the Civil War who goes out to a frontier post and then ends up making friends with the Indians, and then helping them against a later invasion to attempt to drive them out onto a reservation type situation.
Here, the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.As someone noted above, the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental, however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British (I've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not).This seems to be more like some sort of post-colonial clap-trap than an "anti-technology" film, of course the two things usually go hand-in-hand when perpetrating the myth of the noble savage.
In any case, I have no interest in actually watching it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>brian0918</author>
	<datestamp>1262019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're supposed to believe that the whole planet evolved that way. The Na'vi consider it magic, but it's actually supposed to be highly advanced biology. So yes, the Na'vi are low-tech, because they don't have a clue how any of it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're supposed to believe that the whole planet evolved that way .
The Na'vi consider it magic , but it 's actually supposed to be highly advanced biology .
So yes , the Na'vi are low-tech , because they do n't have a clue how any of it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're supposed to believe that the whole planet evolved that way.
The Na'vi consider it magic, but it's actually supposed to be highly advanced biology.
So yes, the Na'vi are low-tech, because they don't have a clue how any of it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575452</id>
	<title>Cognitive Dissonance? Are you Kidding?</title>
	<author>bitspotter</author>
	<datestamp>1261993740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This movie is anti-technology, because humans would never exploit foreign resources without the right tools for the job."</p><p>Did it ever occur to the poster that a creative, intelligent director who worked with the story's subject matter for years in production didn't encounter this "ironic" concept, and reject it out of hand as missing the point? It took me about 5 seconds.</p><p>"Technology" doesn't "force" us to strip-mine, deforest, privatize, pollute or pillage natural resources. Asserting so is an attempt to avoid responsibility for the uses we put our innovations to.</p><p>Let's try: "It is a poor workman that blames his tools."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This movie is anti-technology , because humans would never exploit foreign resources without the right tools for the job .
" Did it ever occur to the poster that a creative , intelligent director who worked with the story 's subject matter for years in production did n't encounter this " ironic " concept , and reject it out of hand as missing the point ?
It took me about 5 seconds .
" Technology " does n't " force " us to strip-mine , deforest , privatize , pollute or pillage natural resources .
Asserting so is an attempt to avoid responsibility for the uses we put our innovations to.Let 's try : " It is a poor workman that blames his tools .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This movie is anti-technology, because humans would never exploit foreign resources without the right tools for the job.
"Did it ever occur to the poster that a creative, intelligent director who worked with the story's subject matter for years in production didn't encounter this "ironic" concept, and reject it out of hand as missing the point?
It took me about 5 seconds.
"Technology" doesn't "force" us to strip-mine, deforest, privatize, pollute or pillage natural resources.
Asserting so is an attempt to avoid responsibility for the uses we put our innovations to.Let's try: "It is a poor workman that blames his tools.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1262015400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, I wonder what the Native Americans did back in the 1700's when that happened? Probably the same as any European or Asian: made their buddy's life comfortable as that person died. Harmony doesn't mean your life is easy or long... not sure what doesn't "hold up" there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that does n't hold up to close scrutiny .
For instance , what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.Yeah , I wonder what the Native Americans did back in the 1700 's when that happened ?
Probably the same as any European or Asian : made their buddy 's life comfortable as that person died .
Harmony does n't mean your life is easy or long... not sure what does n't " hold up " there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an ideal -- peaceful people living in harmony with nature -- that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.Yeah, I wonder what the Native Americans did back in the 1700's when that happened?
Probably the same as any European or Asian: made their buddy's life comfortable as that person died.
Harmony doesn't mean your life is easy or long... not sure what doesn't "hold up" there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574624</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262032500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right that the U.S. government is not making money on Iraq; it's been a fiscal black hole. But there are plenty of companies that benefit from the war and many of the top government hawks for the Iraq war were either former employees of these contractors or they became employees after they left government. The revolving door between the private sector and the government (particularly the executive branch) will continue to cause wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right that the U.S. government is not making money on Iraq ; it 's been a fiscal black hole .
But there are plenty of companies that benefit from the war and many of the top government hawks for the Iraq war were either former employees of these contractors or they became employees after they left government .
The revolving door between the private sector and the government ( particularly the executive branch ) will continue to cause wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right that the U.S. government is not making money on Iraq; it's been a fiscal black hole.
But there are plenty of companies that benefit from the war and many of the top government hawks for the Iraq war were either former employees of these contractors or they became employees after they left government.
The revolving door between the private sector and the government (particularly the executive branch) will continue to cause wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572438</id>
	<title>Which fallacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262022540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your soul is immortal, or you somehow come back into a new and better body, why hold on to a broken vehicle?<br>You'll find references to this in traditions from all corners of the world. You may choose to believe this was a way to cope with the notion of death, however, many things strongly indicate we have lived many lives and its not just a fantasy or cope-mechanism.</p><p>It is we who are living unnatural lives, with unnatural fear of the inevitable. If we somehow managed to extend our body's lifetime infinitely, our fear of dying would likely become infinite - or zero, after some considerable time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your soul is immortal , or you somehow come back into a new and better body , why hold on to a broken vehicle ? You 'll find references to this in traditions from all corners of the world .
You may choose to believe this was a way to cope with the notion of death , however , many things strongly indicate we have lived many lives and its not just a fantasy or cope-mechanism.It is we who are living unnatural lives , with unnatural fear of the inevitable .
If we somehow managed to extend our body 's lifetime infinitely , our fear of dying would likely become infinite - or zero , after some considerable time : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your soul is immortal, or you somehow come back into a new and better body, why hold on to a broken vehicle?You'll find references to this in traditions from all corners of the world.
You may choose to believe this was a way to cope with the notion of death, however, many things strongly indicate we have lived many lives and its not just a fantasy or cope-mechanism.It is we who are living unnatural lives, with unnatural fear of the inevitable.
If we somehow managed to extend our body's lifetime infinitely, our fear of dying would likely become infinite - or zero, after some considerable time :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573828</id>
	<title>Stress over bullshit much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262028660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jesus fucking Christ, people, has anyone considered viewing at it as just a really cool looking movie? A good cigar can just be a good cigar even if it happens to come from Cuba and you don't like Cuba's politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus fucking Christ , people , has anyone considered viewing at it as just a really cool looking movie ?
A good cigar can just be a good cigar even if it happens to come from Cuba and you do n't like Cuba 's politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus fucking Christ, people, has anyone considered viewing at it as just a really cool looking movie?
A good cigar can just be a good cigar even if it happens to come from Cuba and you don't like Cuba's politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573224</id>
	<title>Mute point. It's pro-technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262025720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My observation was that the natives have freakin fiber optics growing out of their hair. That's about as technological as it gets. The movie celebrates technology that doesn't consume, doesn't destroy, but works in harmony for a greater good. As a side note, the movie also glorifies war used not for greed, but for defense and preservation. The message is not really even anti-war. It's against corporate society and the inherent greed and selfishness within our species.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My observation was that the natives have freakin fiber optics growing out of their hair .
That 's about as technological as it gets .
The movie celebrates technology that does n't consume , does n't destroy , but works in harmony for a greater good .
As a side note , the movie also glorifies war used not for greed , but for defense and preservation .
The message is not really even anti-war .
It 's against corporate society and the inherent greed and selfishness within our species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My observation was that the natives have freakin fiber optics growing out of their hair.
That's about as technological as it gets.
The movie celebrates technology that doesn't consume, doesn't destroy, but works in harmony for a greater good.
As a side note, the movie also glorifies war used not for greed, but for defense and preservation.
The message is not really even anti-war.
It's against corporate society and the inherent greed and selfishness within our species.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30591756</id>
	<title>Re:Taken out of context, clearly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not human nature to abuse nature, nature abuses itself.</p></div><p>Bullshit. Humans inevitably do it <b>by choice</b>. No other forms of life do. And certainly not nature itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not human nature to abuse nature , nature abuses itself.Bullshit .
Humans inevitably do it by choice .
No other forms of life do .
And certainly not nature itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not human nature to abuse nature, nature abuses itself.Bullshit.
Humans inevitably do it by choice.
No other forms of life do.
And certainly not nature itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571126</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262016120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine."</i> </p><p>They always forget to show the medicine rock that cures the disease or genetic defect.  They take the rock and bash the baby in the head, problem solved.</p><p>From our own history the native populations were responsible for wiping out nearly every large land animal in prehistoric times including driving the Nenaderthalls into extinction.  The only reason the Indians had any horses to ride in North America was because the Spanish reintroduced them.</p><p>I find the fact that the politcal Left seem to embrace the the "Noble Savage" concept, but at the same time abhor anything that endangers children, hunting not to mention weapons, anything that violates animal rights, any type of violence, and any kind of spiritual ritutal.  All those things pretty much sums up the entire Noble Savage person and lifestyle.</p><p>Loved the movie by the way.  Maybe we'll see another Aliens movie since they pretty much lifted the Colonial Marines right out and used them in Avatar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For instance , what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine .
" They always forget to show the medicine rock that cures the disease or genetic defect .
They take the rock and bash the baby in the head , problem solved.From our own history the native populations were responsible for wiping out nearly every large land animal in prehistoric times including driving the Nenaderthalls into extinction .
The only reason the Indians had any horses to ride in North America was because the Spanish reintroduced them.I find the fact that the politcal Left seem to embrace the the " Noble Savage " concept , but at the same time abhor anything that endangers children , hunting not to mention weapons , anything that violates animal rights , any type of violence , and any kind of spiritual ritutal .
All those things pretty much sums up the entire Noble Savage person and lifestyle.Loved the movie by the way .
Maybe we 'll see another Aliens movie since they pretty much lifted the Colonial Marines right out and used them in Avatar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For instance, what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease or needs some other benefit of modern medicine.
" They always forget to show the medicine rock that cures the disease or genetic defect.
They take the rock and bash the baby in the head, problem solved.From our own history the native populations were responsible for wiping out nearly every large land animal in prehistoric times including driving the Nenaderthalls into extinction.
The only reason the Indians had any horses to ride in North America was because the Spanish reintroduced them.I find the fact that the politcal Left seem to embrace the the "Noble Savage" concept, but at the same time abhor anything that endangers children, hunting not to mention weapons, anything that violates animal rights, any type of violence, and any kind of spiritual ritutal.
All those things pretty much sums up the entire Noble Savage person and lifestyle.Loved the movie by the way.
Maybe we'll see another Aliens movie since they pretty much lifted the Colonial Marines right out and used them in Avatar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572130</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262021220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though not as prevalent as it was just a couple decades ago, "white guilt" is a feeling of responsibility particularly experienced by privileged white people for the suffering of blacks under the slave system. It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery.</p></div><p>Really? None of the privileges currently enjoyed by white people in America(higher starting salaries, better chances and getting jobs, longer lives, etc.) have anything to do with slavery? What about the fact that blacks were freed from slavery, received no reparations, and went right back to bondage in the form of wage slavery? And then suffered horrifying discrimination for another century or so?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though not as prevalent as it was just a couple decades ago , " white guilt " is a feeling of responsibility particularly experienced by privileged white people for the suffering of blacks under the slave system .
It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery.Really ?
None of the privileges currently enjoyed by white people in America ( higher starting salaries , better chances and getting jobs , longer lives , etc .
) have anything to do with slavery ?
What about the fact that blacks were freed from slavery , received no reparations , and went right back to bondage in the form of wage slavery ?
And then suffered horrifying discrimination for another century or so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though not as prevalent as it was just a couple decades ago, "white guilt" is a feeling of responsibility particularly experienced by privileged white people for the suffering of blacks under the slave system.
It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery.Really?
None of the privileges currently enjoyed by white people in America(higher starting salaries, better chances and getting jobs, longer lives, etc.
) have anything to do with slavery?
What about the fact that blacks were freed from slavery, received no reparations, and went right back to bondage in the form of wage slavery?
And then suffered horrifying discrimination for another century or so?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571192</id>
	<title>Not Anti-tech,</title>
	<author>God of Lemmings</author>
	<datestamp>1262016420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wasn't anti-technology in any way. For the Na'vi, the animals and trees around them functioned well as their technology,
despite being completely biological.
<br> <br>
The movie portrayed paramilitary/mercenary and stockholder-driven corporate interests as the primary antagonists, to
both the scientists, the Na'vi, and Pandora itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't anti-technology in any way .
For the Na'vi , the animals and trees around them functioned well as their technology , despite being completely biological .
The movie portrayed paramilitary/mercenary and stockholder-driven corporate interests as the primary antagonists , to both the scientists , the Na'vi , and Pandora itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't anti-technology in any way.
For the Na'vi, the animals and trees around them functioned well as their technology,
despite being completely biological.
The movie portrayed paramilitary/mercenary and stockholder-driven corporate interests as the primary antagonists, to
both the scientists, the Na'vi, and Pandora itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573464</id>
	<title>Re:Is "anti-technology" really the message?</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1262026920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it may be anti-technology... but the technology of burning up fuel while flying James Cameron's personal jet plane is ok.  Then I thought it might be about wastefulness... but the $500,000,000 to make a 3-hour entertainment movie is also ok.  Perhaps it's about greed?  No... the $1B gross the movie has raked in, so far, is also not just perfectly acceptable, but nominal.  The message is... veterans are evil... unless they're crippled or deserters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it may be anti-technology... but the technology of burning up fuel while flying James Cameron 's personal jet plane is ok. Then I thought it might be about wastefulness... but the $ 500,000,000 to make a 3-hour entertainment movie is also ok. Perhaps it 's about greed ?
No... the $ 1B gross the movie has raked in , so far , is also not just perfectly acceptable , but nominal .
The message is... veterans are evil... unless they 're crippled or deserters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it may be anti-technology... but the technology of burning up fuel while flying James Cameron's personal jet plane is ok.  Then I thought it might be about wastefulness... but the $500,000,000 to make a 3-hour entertainment movie is also ok.  Perhaps it's about greed?
No... the $1B gross the movie has raked in, so far, is also not just perfectly acceptable, but nominal.
The message is... veterans are evil... unless they're crippled or deserters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573724</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262028120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Iraqi people do own the oil on paper, but which oil companies do you think got the contracts to develop the oil fields? Also, the Iraqi people are not exactly free to do what they want with the oil -- e.g. they probably would not be allowed to sell it to say, Cuba, by the occupying power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Iraqi people do own the oil on paper , but which oil companies do you think got the contracts to develop the oil fields ?
Also , the Iraqi people are not exactly free to do what they want with the oil -- e.g .
they probably would not be allowed to sell it to say , Cuba , by the occupying power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Iraqi people do own the oil on paper, but which oil companies do you think got the contracts to develop the oil fields?
Also, the Iraqi people are not exactly free to do what they want with the oil -- e.g.
they probably would not be allowed to sell it to say, Cuba, by the occupying power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571520</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262018160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen.   His messages threw mud over a moderately-decent film.  Political statement down one's throat = instant non-classic.  This movie will be EASILY forgotten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
His messages threw mud over a moderately-decent film .
Political statement down one 's throat = instant non-classic .
This movie will be EASILY forgotten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
His messages threw mud over a moderately-decent film.
Political statement down one's throat = instant non-classic.
This movie will be EASILY forgotten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574094</id>
	<title>The story is brainless, but some viewers are, too.</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1262029980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Avatar" is anti-technology? WTF? Is that why all of the scientists are good guys in the movie?<p>

I thought the story was simple enough that anyone with a quarter of a brain may understand it, but apparently some people had their quarter of a brain way too preoccupied with processing the 3D visuals to even lend a thought to the story.</p><p>

Ok, here is it for you guys. I'll use simple sentences.</p><p>
1. Science is good. Heck, it's to die for, even.<br>
2. Technology is okay, depending on what it's used for.<br>
3. Killing other people and taking their stuff is bad. Even if they have blue skin and live in a tree. It's their tree, so keep your greedy little fingers off it.</p><p>

There are a few other minor points to the story, but I won't overload your brain for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Avatar " is anti-technology ?
WTF ? Is that why all of the scientists are good guys in the movie ?
I thought the story was simple enough that anyone with a quarter of a brain may understand it , but apparently some people had their quarter of a brain way too preoccupied with processing the 3D visuals to even lend a thought to the story .
Ok , here is it for you guys .
I 'll use simple sentences .
1. Science is good .
Heck , it 's to die for , even .
2. Technology is okay , depending on what it 's used for .
3. Killing other people and taking their stuff is bad .
Even if they have blue skin and live in a tree .
It 's their tree , so keep your greedy little fingers off it .
There are a few other minor points to the story , but I wo n't overload your brain for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Avatar" is anti-technology?
WTF? Is that why all of the scientists are good guys in the movie?
I thought the story was simple enough that anyone with a quarter of a brain may understand it, but apparently some people had their quarter of a brain way too preoccupied with processing the 3D visuals to even lend a thought to the story.
Ok, here is it for you guys.
I'll use simple sentences.
1. Science is good.
Heck, it's to die for, even.
2. Technology is okay, depending on what it's used for.
3. Killing other people and taking their stuff is bad.
Even if they have blue skin and live in a tree.
It's their tree, so keep your greedy little fingers off it.
There are a few other minor points to the story, but I won't overload your brain for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576540</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261999500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, the native tribes had warriors, but the movie contained no hint of any conflict between them.  Then why did they have warriors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , the native tribes had warriors , but the movie contained no hint of any conflict between them .
Then why did they have warriors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, the native tribes had warriors, but the movie contained no hint of any conflict between them.
Then why did they have warriors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842</id>
	<title>Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262014620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that they rely on bio-centric technology doesn't make them low-tech.  Every major organism on that planet has a universal neural bus that can establish a physical and logical link in about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3 seconds.  Does that sound even remotely accidental?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they rely on bio-centric technology does n't make them low-tech .
Every major organism on that planet has a universal neural bus that can establish a physical and logical link in about .3 seconds .
Does that sound even remotely accidental ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they rely on bio-centric technology doesn't make them low-tech.
Every major organism on that planet has a universal neural bus that can establish a physical and logical link in about .3 seconds.
Does that sound even remotely accidental?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576180</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>redhotgranny</author>
	<datestamp>1261997280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it savage? They would probably argue that it is humane not to let a crippled being to struggle through its life. A crippled child/adult might burden parents/tribe as they might not be productive or very limited with their contribution and making everybody's life harder, which might not be easy beginning with.
"Western" moral or something says it is just wrong, but it could be thought to be a late form of abortion. Any form abortion is already under heated discussion among religious sects. And if abortion gets banned among western countries it becomes later morally wrong thing in the same way as drowning crippled babies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it savage ?
They would probably argue that it is humane not to let a crippled being to struggle through its life .
A crippled child/adult might burden parents/tribe as they might not be productive or very limited with their contribution and making everybody 's life harder , which might not be easy beginning with .
" Western " moral or something says it is just wrong , but it could be thought to be a late form of abortion .
Any form abortion is already under heated discussion among religious sects .
And if abortion gets banned among western countries it becomes later morally wrong thing in the same way as drowning crippled babies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it savage?
They would probably argue that it is humane not to let a crippled being to struggle through its life.
A crippled child/adult might burden parents/tribe as they might not be productive or very limited with their contribution and making everybody's life harder, which might not be easy beginning with.
"Western" moral or something says it is just wrong, but it could be thought to be a late form of abortion.
Any form abortion is already under heated discussion among religious sects.
And if abortion gets banned among western countries it becomes later morally wrong thing in the same way as drowning crippled babies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572600</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1262023200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Na'vi are pretty much stone age.  Maybe someone else built them, but the Na'vi are technologically primitive.  They have no idea of the science behind the natural phenomenon they use.  They're the equivilent of a cave man who lucks into a particlarly usefully shaped bit of iron.  Neither of them understand, technologically, what they're holding.  Neither has the technical skill to reproduce the artifact.  Both of them treat it as magic and a gift of nature/gods/spirits/magic in an effort to explain what's going on in their world.  The Na'vi can just get away with it because we don't see the impact of their current lack of sanitation technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Na'vi are pretty much stone age .
Maybe someone else built them , but the Na'vi are technologically primitive .
They have no idea of the science behind the natural phenomenon they use .
They 're the equivilent of a cave man who lucks into a particlarly usefully shaped bit of iron .
Neither of them understand , technologically , what they 're holding .
Neither has the technical skill to reproduce the artifact .
Both of them treat it as magic and a gift of nature/gods/spirits/magic in an effort to explain what 's going on in their world .
The Na'vi can just get away with it because we do n't see the impact of their current lack of sanitation technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Na'vi are pretty much stone age.
Maybe someone else built them, but the Na'vi are technologically primitive.
They have no idea of the science behind the natural phenomenon they use.
They're the equivilent of a cave man who lucks into a particlarly usefully shaped bit of iron.
Neither of them understand, technologically, what they're holding.
Neither has the technical skill to reproduce the artifact.
Both of them treat it as magic and a gift of nature/gods/spirits/magic in an effort to explain what's going on in their world.
The Na'vi can just get away with it because we don't see the impact of their current lack of sanitation technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576860</id>
	<title>if we're going to solve our environmental problems</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262001600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it will be with high tech</p><p>meanwhile, this amazing low tech thing called exploding human populations is the real source of our environmental issues</p><p>so, whatever. tech v environment is a completely contrived, false dichotomy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it will be with high techmeanwhile , this amazing low tech thing called exploding human populations is the real source of our environmental issuesso , whatever .
tech v environment is a completely contrived , false dichotomy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it will be with high techmeanwhile, this amazing low tech thing called exploding human populations is the real source of our environmental issuesso, whatever.
tech v environment is a completely contrived, false dichotomy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571222</id>
	<title>Unobtainium</title>
	<author>X10</author>
	<datestamp>1262016600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see that it says "technology is bad". It says "destroying nature is bad" and "the military is bad". The Na'vi have developed a very high grade bio techology that in the end makes them more powerful than an earthling colonel who went berserk, so technology is good.</p><p>The video and the effects are great, the idea of having humans using remote control bodies - beit robots or bio robots - is very interesting and powerful. But the story is really really bad. It's more sentimental than the Lion King and Pokahontas put together. Of course, the makers didn't take themselfves all to serious: the stuff that it's all about is called "Unobtainium".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see that it says " technology is bad " .
It says " destroying nature is bad " and " the military is bad " .
The Na'vi have developed a very high grade bio techology that in the end makes them more powerful than an earthling colonel who went berserk , so technology is good.The video and the effects are great , the idea of having humans using remote control bodies - beit robots or bio robots - is very interesting and powerful .
But the story is really really bad .
It 's more sentimental than the Lion King and Pokahontas put together .
Of course , the makers did n't take themselfves all to serious : the stuff that it 's all about is called " Unobtainium " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see that it says "technology is bad".
It says "destroying nature is bad" and "the military is bad".
The Na'vi have developed a very high grade bio techology that in the end makes them more powerful than an earthling colonel who went berserk, so technology is good.The video and the effects are great, the idea of having humans using remote control bodies - beit robots or bio robots - is very interesting and powerful.
But the story is really really bad.
It's more sentimental than the Lion King and Pokahontas put together.
Of course, the makers didn't take themselfves all to serious: the stuff that it's all about is called "Unobtainium".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570852</id>
	<title>only one reference</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1262014680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>when the chief (of whatever the "avatar" race is) says something along the lines of not being able to teach the other avatars as their cup was "already full" whereas the grunt who bumbles in has not been trained for the mission.
<p>
Apart from that, you can't really say it's anti-technology. Yes, it has a message about imperialism and how conolial powers - or companies despoil environments for their own gain. However that's been going on for venturies and doesn't have a tech. aspect to it. The tech just increases the speed of the destruction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when the chief ( of whatever the " avatar " race is ) says something along the lines of not being able to teach the other avatars as their cup was " already full " whereas the grunt who bumbles in has not been trained for the mission .
Apart from that , you ca n't really say it 's anti-technology .
Yes , it has a message about imperialism and how conolial powers - or companies despoil environments for their own gain .
However that 's been going on for venturies and does n't have a tech .
aspect to it .
The tech just increases the speed of the destruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when the chief (of whatever the "avatar" race is) says something along the lines of not being able to teach the other avatars as their cup was "already full" whereas the grunt who bumbles in has not been trained for the mission.
Apart from that, you can't really say it's anti-technology.
Yes, it has a message about imperialism and how conolial powers - or companies despoil environments for their own gain.
However that's been going on for venturies and doesn't have a tech.
aspect to it.
The tech just increases the speed of the destruction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580016</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1262119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that is a perfectly rational thing to do.<br>
In a harsh environment with limited resources, "being nice to the handicapped" just doesn't pay off.
<br>
We may consider it "inhuman" but this is how nature works.<br>
We are very fortunate in our society that we have reached a standard of living which allows us the luxury of taking care of the weak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is a perfectly rational thing to do .
In a harsh environment with limited resources , " being nice to the handicapped " just does n't pay off .
We may consider it " inhuman " but this is how nature works .
We are very fortunate in our society that we have reached a standard of living which allows us the luxury of taking care of the weak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is a perfectly rational thing to do.
In a harsh environment with limited resources, "being nice to the handicapped" just doesn't pay off.
We may consider it "inhuman" but this is how nature works.
We are very fortunate in our society that we have reached a standard of living which allows us the luxury of taking care of the weak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570922</id>
	<title>Fascination With End of Times</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1262015040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it has more to do with the fascination about the End of Times. People love seeing movies like Apocalypse Now or 2012.  Perhaps it is because we as humans realize that the lives we lead now are superficial and do not allow us to reach the potential that we have within us. Nobody likes being wage-slaves to our feudalistic overlords.

<br> <br>
I think, deep inside somewhere, we all yearn for a simpler time when we don't have all the stimulation and complexity technology currently gives us.<br> <br>
In reality, I think this is where technology went wrong: instead of making our lives simpler and easier, it has ended up making them more complex and more stressful for us all!  Technology should not be attempting to change our lives for the worse; it should be an aid to help all humanity live better lives. I think we have strayed far from that goal, sadly.<br> <br>
P.S. I have no hatred of technology and love it as much as the next tech geek, but there's a point where you just have to think, "Yes, we may have gone too far..."  I think that point comes when you look at the world you live in and see that we are obsessed with death and mayhem on the news, while in the real world, many people suffer and we (as a collective) do nothing to aid their lives.<br> <br>
P.P.S. Throwing money at people does not count.<br> <br>
P.P.P.S. Yes, I do know there are many organizations that go out and help the peoples of the world outside our borders, but the aid I'm talking about is this: Technological discoveries that actually help the people of the rest of the world live better lives, not us.  This is where a capitalistic technology system fails. If it's not in our interest to discover better ways to use technology to clear sand dunes and create better irrigation systems in the desert, it just won't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it has more to do with the fascination about the End of Times .
People love seeing movies like Apocalypse Now or 2012 .
Perhaps it is because we as humans realize that the lives we lead now are superficial and do not allow us to reach the potential that we have within us .
Nobody likes being wage-slaves to our feudalistic overlords .
I think , deep inside somewhere , we all yearn for a simpler time when we do n't have all the stimulation and complexity technology currently gives us .
In reality , I think this is where technology went wrong : instead of making our lives simpler and easier , it has ended up making them more complex and more stressful for us all !
Technology should not be attempting to change our lives for the worse ; it should be an aid to help all humanity live better lives .
I think we have strayed far from that goal , sadly .
P.S. I have no hatred of technology and love it as much as the next tech geek , but there 's a point where you just have to think , " Yes , we may have gone too far... " I think that point comes when you look at the world you live in and see that we are obsessed with death and mayhem on the news , while in the real world , many people suffer and we ( as a collective ) do nothing to aid their lives .
P.P.S. Throwing money at people does not count .
P.P.P.S. Yes , I do know there are many organizations that go out and help the peoples of the world outside our borders , but the aid I 'm talking about is this : Technological discoveries that actually help the people of the rest of the world live better lives , not us .
This is where a capitalistic technology system fails .
If it 's not in our interest to discover better ways to use technology to clear sand dunes and create better irrigation systems in the desert , it just wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it has more to do with the fascination about the End of Times.
People love seeing movies like Apocalypse Now or 2012.
Perhaps it is because we as humans realize that the lives we lead now are superficial and do not allow us to reach the potential that we have within us.
Nobody likes being wage-slaves to our feudalistic overlords.
I think, deep inside somewhere, we all yearn for a simpler time when we don't have all the stimulation and complexity technology currently gives us.
In reality, I think this is where technology went wrong: instead of making our lives simpler and easier, it has ended up making them more complex and more stressful for us all!
Technology should not be attempting to change our lives for the worse; it should be an aid to help all humanity live better lives.
I think we have strayed far from that goal, sadly.
P.S. I have no hatred of technology and love it as much as the next tech geek, but there's a point where you just have to think, "Yes, we may have gone too far..."  I think that point comes when you look at the world you live in and see that we are obsessed with death and mayhem on the news, while in the real world, many people suffer and we (as a collective) do nothing to aid their lives.
P.P.S. Throwing money at people does not count.
P.P.P.S. Yes, I do know there are many organizations that go out and help the peoples of the world outside our borders, but the aid I'm talking about is this: Technological discoveries that actually help the people of the rest of the world live better lives, not us.
This is where a capitalistic technology system fails.
If it's not in our interest to discover better ways to use technology to clear sand dunes and create better irrigation systems in the desert, it just won't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572094</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1262021040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As someone noted above, the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental, however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British (I've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not).</p></div><p>While that may be true for a good many locales, the atrocities committed in the United States were pretty much done by the homegrown Americans.  Keep in mind that many of the colonies started there were private endeavors.<br>Now, Canada was very much in control of the British Empire, even though there were both the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company.  And while atrocities were committed against the natives in Canada, we didn't engage in outright war or genocide with them.  Not that I'm proud of how natives were handled in Canada - "a little less evil than the other guys" isn't much of a slogan in my opinion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone noted above , the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental , however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British ( I 've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not ) .While that may be true for a good many locales , the atrocities committed in the United States were pretty much done by the homegrown Americans .
Keep in mind that many of the colonies started there were private endeavors.Now , Canada was very much in control of the British Empire , even though there were both the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company .
And while atrocities were committed against the natives in Canada , we did n't engage in outright war or genocide with them .
Not that I 'm proud of how natives were handled in Canada - " a little less evil than the other guys " is n't much of a slogan in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone noted above, the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental, however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British (I've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not).While that may be true for a good many locales, the atrocities committed in the United States were pretty much done by the homegrown Americans.
Keep in mind that many of the colonies started there were private endeavors.Now, Canada was very much in control of the British Empire, even though there were both the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company.
And while atrocities were committed against the natives in Canada, we didn't engage in outright war or genocide with them.
Not that I'm proud of how natives were handled in Canada - "a little less evil than the other guys" isn't much of a slogan in my opinion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30582182</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't get "tech is bad" from the movie at all.</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1262103240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> What was portrayed in a poor light was forcibly relocating a people so as to be able to mine out a large chunk of resource that they're sitting on top of, and that's just theft.</i></p><p>Well, they did try to pay for it.</p><p>Ultimately this should have been a political solution and not a corporate/financial solution, but when one society has something that another society needs but is unwilling to engage in reasonable commerce to deliver it, then they better have lots of tanks to back that up.</p><p>If the stuff were really that valuable there is no reason a government couldn't have negotiated some kind of reasonable arrangement so that ecologically-friendly mining techniques could be used to harvest the ore from under the settlement.</p><p>If the natives have such a hardline policy on things like this that they simply are unwilling to deal, then you will have conflict - just like has ALWAYS been the case historically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What was portrayed in a poor light was forcibly relocating a people so as to be able to mine out a large chunk of resource that they 're sitting on top of , and that 's just theft.Well , they did try to pay for it.Ultimately this should have been a political solution and not a corporate/financial solution , but when one society has something that another society needs but is unwilling to engage in reasonable commerce to deliver it , then they better have lots of tanks to back that up.If the stuff were really that valuable there is no reason a government could n't have negotiated some kind of reasonable arrangement so that ecologically-friendly mining techniques could be used to harvest the ore from under the settlement.If the natives have such a hardline policy on things like this that they simply are unwilling to deal , then you will have conflict - just like has ALWAYS been the case historically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What was portrayed in a poor light was forcibly relocating a people so as to be able to mine out a large chunk of resource that they're sitting on top of, and that's just theft.Well, they did try to pay for it.Ultimately this should have been a political solution and not a corporate/financial solution, but when one society has something that another society needs but is unwilling to engage in reasonable commerce to deliver it, then they better have lots of tanks to back that up.If the stuff were really that valuable there is no reason a government couldn't have negotiated some kind of reasonable arrangement so that ecologically-friendly mining techniques could be used to harvest the ore from under the settlement.If the natives have such a hardline policy on things like this that they simply are unwilling to deal, then you will have conflict - just like has ALWAYS been the case historically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580002</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eywa can handle that. It could handle creating in short time, a human to soul tree interface to upload Grace. Grace just died to quickly to get a full upload. I tend to doubt that any genetic diseases are left. Eywa is MORE networked and complex that a human brain. With a brain the size of a planet comes a slower response time, especially considering that all activity is on the surface. It seems to me that the Na'vi are a multi-million year old species that has partially fallen from a biologic post singularly highpoint. Posted anon to not undo moderating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eywa can handle that .
It could handle creating in short time , a human to soul tree interface to upload Grace .
Grace just died to quickly to get a full upload .
I tend to doubt that any genetic diseases are left .
Eywa is MORE networked and complex that a human brain .
With a brain the size of a planet comes a slower response time , especially considering that all activity is on the surface .
It seems to me that the Na'vi are a multi-million year old species that has partially fallen from a biologic post singularly highpoint .
Posted anon to not undo moderating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eywa can handle that.
It could handle creating in short time, a human to soul tree interface to upload Grace.
Grace just died to quickly to get a full upload.
I tend to doubt that any genetic diseases are left.
Eywa is MORE networked and complex that a human brain.
With a brain the size of a planet comes a slower response time, especially considering that all activity is on the surface.
It seems to me that the Na'vi are a multi-million year old species that has partially fallen from a biologic post singularly highpoint.
Posted anon to not undo moderating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572160</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq - More like Alien...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262021460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The private company doing whatever it takes to get what they want was featured in another Cameron feature: Alien. The Corporation was willing to allow all of the humans including Ripley die so they could get the Alien for weapons research and eventual profits. That movie came out a bit before Iraq, don't you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The private company doing whatever it takes to get what they want was featured in another Cameron feature : Alien .
The Corporation was willing to allow all of the humans including Ripley die so they could get the Alien for weapons research and eventual profits .
That movie came out a bit before Iraq , do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The private company doing whatever it takes to get what they want was featured in another Cameron feature: Alien.
The Corporation was willing to allow all of the humans including Ripley die so they could get the Alien for weapons research and eventual profits.
That movie came out a bit before Iraq, don't you think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572188</id>
	<title>Re:Fascination With End of Times</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262021520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think it has more to do with the fascination about the End of Times.</i></p><p>My grandmother believed all of my (at least) life that we lived in the end times, and that the apocalypse was near. It was -- for her. She died in 2003 at age 99 a few months before her 100th birthday. The apocalypse comes for us all, sooner or later.</p><p><i>In reality, I think this is where technology went wrong: instead of making our lives simpler and easier, it has ended up making them more complex and more stressful for us all!</i></p><p>That hasn't been my experience. If my car broke down when I was young, I'd have to walk to find a pay phone to call a tow truck. Now I keep a phone in my pocket. The cars themselves were more deadly -- no air bags, abs, the dash wasn't even padded. If I wanted popcorn I had to put oil in a pan, put the popcorn in, and watch it until it was done. Now I just throw a bag in the microwave and hit the "popcorn" button. My dad was an electrical lineman, and had to climb poles. By the time he retired they had bucket trucks; no more climbing.</p><p>I can't think of a single piece of tech that has made my life more stressful of complex; technology has only removed stress, gruntwork, and complexity. What tech has made you life more stressful and complex?</p><p><i>there's a point where you just have to think, "Yes, we may have gone too far..." </i></p><p>Aside from nuclear weaponry, how has it gone too far?</p><p><i>I think that point comes when you look at the world you live in and see that we are obsessed with death and mayhem on the news</i></p><p>That hasn't changed in my lifetime, and I'm not young.</p><p><i>many people suffer and we (as a collective) do nothing to aid their lives.</i></p><p>You have never seen a food pantry or homeless shelter? Two hundred years ago they had debtors' prisons.</p><p><i>If it's not in our interest to discover better ways to use technology to clear sand dunes and create better irrigation systems in the desert, it just won't happen.</i></p><p>I'm not sure I follow you there, but at any rate irrigating the desert doesn't sound like a good idea to me. The desert has its own ecosystems, irrigate it and they die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it has more to do with the fascination about the End of Times.My grandmother believed all of my ( at least ) life that we lived in the end times , and that the apocalypse was near .
It was -- for her .
She died in 2003 at age 99 a few months before her 100th birthday .
The apocalypse comes for us all , sooner or later.In reality , I think this is where technology went wrong : instead of making our lives simpler and easier , it has ended up making them more complex and more stressful for us all ! That has n't been my experience .
If my car broke down when I was young , I 'd have to walk to find a pay phone to call a tow truck .
Now I keep a phone in my pocket .
The cars themselves were more deadly -- no air bags , abs , the dash was n't even padded .
If I wanted popcorn I had to put oil in a pan , put the popcorn in , and watch it until it was done .
Now I just throw a bag in the microwave and hit the " popcorn " button .
My dad was an electrical lineman , and had to climb poles .
By the time he retired they had bucket trucks ; no more climbing.I ca n't think of a single piece of tech that has made my life more stressful of complex ; technology has only removed stress , gruntwork , and complexity .
What tech has made you life more stressful and complex ? there 's a point where you just have to think , " Yes , we may have gone too far... " Aside from nuclear weaponry , how has it gone too far ? I think that point comes when you look at the world you live in and see that we are obsessed with death and mayhem on the newsThat has n't changed in my lifetime , and I 'm not young.many people suffer and we ( as a collective ) do nothing to aid their lives.You have never seen a food pantry or homeless shelter ?
Two hundred years ago they had debtors ' prisons.If it 's not in our interest to discover better ways to use technology to clear sand dunes and create better irrigation systems in the desert , it just wo n't happen.I 'm not sure I follow you there , but at any rate irrigating the desert does n't sound like a good idea to me .
The desert has its own ecosystems , irrigate it and they die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it has more to do with the fascination about the End of Times.My grandmother believed all of my (at least) life that we lived in the end times, and that the apocalypse was near.
It was -- for her.
She died in 2003 at age 99 a few months before her 100th birthday.
The apocalypse comes for us all, sooner or later.In reality, I think this is where technology went wrong: instead of making our lives simpler and easier, it has ended up making them more complex and more stressful for us all!That hasn't been my experience.
If my car broke down when I was young, I'd have to walk to find a pay phone to call a tow truck.
Now I keep a phone in my pocket.
The cars themselves were more deadly -- no air bags, abs, the dash wasn't even padded.
If I wanted popcorn I had to put oil in a pan, put the popcorn in, and watch it until it was done.
Now I just throw a bag in the microwave and hit the "popcorn" button.
My dad was an electrical lineman, and had to climb poles.
By the time he retired they had bucket trucks; no more climbing.I can't think of a single piece of tech that has made my life more stressful of complex; technology has only removed stress, gruntwork, and complexity.
What tech has made you life more stressful and complex?there's a point where you just have to think, "Yes, we may have gone too far..." Aside from nuclear weaponry, how has it gone too far?I think that point comes when you look at the world you live in and see that we are obsessed with death and mayhem on the newsThat hasn't changed in my lifetime, and I'm not young.many people suffer and we (as a collective) do nothing to aid their lives.You have never seen a food pantry or homeless shelter?
Two hundred years ago they had debtors' prisons.If it's not in our interest to discover better ways to use technology to clear sand dunes and create better irrigation systems in the desert, it just won't happen.I'm not sure I follow you there, but at any rate irrigating the desert doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
The desert has its own ecosystems, irrigate it and they die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580364</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>Chrontius</author>
	<datestamp>1262083320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm fond of the theory that Pandora is a colony world created by a post-Singularity species, where they could enjoy the rest of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... until the sun burns out.
<br> <br>
What would <i>you</i> do with eternity and nanomachines after going to the stars?<br> <br>

Seriously, tell me you have some better idea than making everyone sexy and having mind-blowing sex as often as you like while a demonstrably benevolent god keeps everything working as originally intended, possibly also absorbing the informational content of every brain that ends up buried?  (This is a euphemism for any computer-generated afterlife you care to implement, from reincarnation to harps and clouds)
It also explains why all the na'vi are in perfect health and nobody needs anything but the vestiges of modern medicine (encounters with modern machine guns aside).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fond of the theory that Pandora is a colony world created by a post-Singularity species , where they could enjoy the rest of ... until the sun burns out .
What would you do with eternity and nanomachines after going to the stars ?
Seriously , tell me you have some better idea than making everyone sexy and having mind-blowing sex as often as you like while a demonstrably benevolent god keeps everything working as originally intended , possibly also absorbing the informational content of every brain that ends up buried ?
( This is a euphemism for any computer-generated afterlife you care to implement , from reincarnation to harps and clouds ) It also explains why all the na'vi are in perfect health and nobody needs anything but the vestiges of modern medicine ( encounters with modern machine guns aside ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fond of the theory that Pandora is a colony world created by a post-Singularity species, where they could enjoy the rest of ... until the sun burns out.
What would you do with eternity and nanomachines after going to the stars?
Seriously, tell me you have some better idea than making everyone sexy and having mind-blowing sex as often as you like while a demonstrably benevolent god keeps everything working as originally intended, possibly also absorbing the informational content of every brain that ends up buried?
(This is a euphemism for any computer-generated afterlife you care to implement, from reincarnation to harps and clouds)
It also explains why all the na'vi are in perfect health and nobody needs anything but the vestiges of modern medicine (encounters with modern machine guns aside).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570876</id>
	<title>Didn't get "tech is bad" from the movie at all...</title>
	<author>wAnder</author>
	<datestamp>1262014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must have been answering the call of nature when the movie claimed that "technology is bad", because I didn't get that impression from it at all.  At most, there was a "might makes right" is bad, and "allowing mankind to become subservient to quarterly shareholder reports" is bad, but that's about it.</p><p>The scientists in the movie did wondrous things with their avatar technology, and the Na'vi had their own, organic version of the same, but never did I see a message that any of this was bad.  What was portrayed in a poor light was forcibly relocating a people so as to be able to mine out a large chunk of resource that they're sitting on top of, and that's just theft.</p><p>The submitter's 3D glasses must have been defective if he's getting an anti-tech message from this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must have been answering the call of nature when the movie claimed that " technology is bad " , because I did n't get that impression from it at all .
At most , there was a " might makes right " is bad , and " allowing mankind to become subservient to quarterly shareholder reports " is bad , but that 's about it.The scientists in the movie did wondrous things with their avatar technology , and the Na'vi had their own , organic version of the same , but never did I see a message that any of this was bad .
What was portrayed in a poor light was forcibly relocating a people so as to be able to mine out a large chunk of resource that they 're sitting on top of , and that 's just theft.The submitter 's 3D glasses must have been defective if he 's getting an anti-tech message from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must have been answering the call of nature when the movie claimed that "technology is bad", because I didn't get that impression from it at all.
At most, there was a "might makes right" is bad, and "allowing mankind to become subservient to quarterly shareholder reports" is bad, but that's about it.The scientists in the movie did wondrous things with their avatar technology, and the Na'vi had their own, organic version of the same, but never did I see a message that any of this was bad.
What was portrayed in a poor light was forcibly relocating a people so as to be able to mine out a large chunk of resource that they're sitting on top of, and that's just theft.The submitter's 3D glasses must have been defective if he's getting an anti-tech message from this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573174</id>
	<title>Re:I got something different from that movie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262025540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had. The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were. Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have. The thing is, they didn't develop weapons. Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.</p><p>What new possibilities could this technology have had? could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5? I'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.</p></div><p>The movie made no indication that the Smurfs had any understanding about how the neural link actually worked - they just knew how to use it. It was never explained where it came from, leaving the unlikely answer of evolution and the more likely answer of some more advanced civilization having engineered the biosphere on the planet long before. The planet brain also didn't put any special emphasis on the Smurfs - it didn't attack the corporate army because they were attacking the Smurfs, it was attacking them because they would destroy parts of itself. The Smurfs are either the remnants of a fallen civilization or they were engineered by someone else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had .
The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were .
Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have .
The thing is , they did n't develop weapons .
Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.What new possibilities could this technology have had ?
could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5 ?
I 'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.The movie made no indication that the Smurfs had any understanding about how the neural link actually worked - they just knew how to use it .
It was never explained where it came from , leaving the unlikely answer of evolution and the more likely answer of some more advanced civilization having engineered the biosphere on the planet long before .
The planet brain also did n't put any special emphasis on the Smurfs - it did n't attack the corporate army because they were attacking the Smurfs , it was attacking them because they would destroy parts of itself .
The Smurfs are either the remnants of a fallen civilization or they were engineered by someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had.
The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were.
Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have.
The thing is, they didn't develop weapons.
Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.What new possibilities could this technology have had?
could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5?
I'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.The movie made no indication that the Smurfs had any understanding about how the neural link actually worked - they just knew how to use it.
It was never explained where it came from, leaving the unlikely answer of evolution and the more likely answer of some more advanced civilization having engineered the biosphere on the planet long before.
The planet brain also didn't put any special emphasis on the Smurfs - it didn't attack the corporate army because they were attacking the Smurfs, it was attacking them because they would destroy parts of itself.
The Smurfs are either the remnants of a fallen civilization or they were engineered by someone else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572104</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1262021100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, truly a bad analogy.  The reality is when you have large numbers of very poor people there is a major risk of them catching a disease that could spread to you or somebody stealing your stuff - so to a point it's a pragmatic attitude.  There is also the concept of Christian charity which has unfortunately been dismissed as communism by many in the USA that like to be thought of as Christians.  This failure can be demonstrated by many examples, a prime one is Barberra Bush complaining about how a man that was homeless in New Orleans was getting the same treatment as all the other evacuees that had homes before Katrina.<br>The worth of a society can really be measured by how they treat those that can't help themselves.  This has nothing to do with not getting over slavery.<br>The romantic noble savage thing is of course crap but in the past has made a good story so caught on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , truly a bad analogy .
The reality is when you have large numbers of very poor people there is a major risk of them catching a disease that could spread to you or somebody stealing your stuff - so to a point it 's a pragmatic attitude .
There is also the concept of Christian charity which has unfortunately been dismissed as communism by many in the USA that like to be thought of as Christians .
This failure can be demonstrated by many examples , a prime one is Barberra Bush complaining about how a man that was homeless in New Orleans was getting the same treatment as all the other evacuees that had homes before Katrina.The worth of a society can really be measured by how they treat those that ca n't help themselves .
This has nothing to do with not getting over slavery.The romantic noble savage thing is of course crap but in the past has made a good story so caught on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, truly a bad analogy.
The reality is when you have large numbers of very poor people there is a major risk of them catching a disease that could spread to you or somebody stealing your stuff - so to a point it's a pragmatic attitude.
There is also the concept of Christian charity which has unfortunately been dismissed as communism by many in the USA that like to be thought of as Christians.
This failure can be demonstrated by many examples, a prime one is Barberra Bush complaining about how a man that was homeless in New Orleans was getting the same treatment as all the other evacuees that had homes before Katrina.The worth of a society can really be measured by how they treat those that can't help themselves.
This has nothing to do with not getting over slavery.The romantic noble savage thing is of course crap but in the past has made a good story so caught on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577624</id>
	<title>Against Nazi Germany? You're Anti-Government!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262007840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with the folks saying it's more "showing the nightmare that misuse of technology could bring".</p><p>The misuse of technology, as companies such as Google and Microsoft start seeking out more and more contracts (already going on) with governments, military, and intelligence agencies all over the world are a very real an immediate threat.</p><p>The last commenter hit the nail on the head. It is this global corporate oligarchy, with plenty of contracts (among others)  with technology conglomerates, that are a threat to the future of this world, and the future of free society in general.</p><p>Smart phones that spy on you, drone armies of thoughtless/indiscriminate killing machines, emails txt messages and other such things sent to the intelligence community and military.</p><p>I would say, that is far different than say. . . inventing technology that is beneficial to humanity, such as... ohh...the internet, or a new way to perform surgery.</p><p>Technology like anything else,isn't just one lump thing. I would equate this logic with claiming that if you opposed the  Government style of Nazi Germany, that means you are anti-government in general. Doesn't make sense when you think about it, does it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the folks saying it 's more " showing the nightmare that misuse of technology could bring " .The misuse of technology , as companies such as Google and Microsoft start seeking out more and more contracts ( already going on ) with governments , military , and intelligence agencies all over the world are a very real an immediate threat.The last commenter hit the nail on the head .
It is this global corporate oligarchy , with plenty of contracts ( among others ) with technology conglomerates , that are a threat to the future of this world , and the future of free society in general.Smart phones that spy on you , drone armies of thoughtless/indiscriminate killing machines , emails txt messages and other such things sent to the intelligence community and military.I would say , that is far different than say .
. .
inventing technology that is beneficial to humanity , such as... ohh...the internet , or a new way to perform surgery.Technology like anything else,is n't just one lump thing .
I would equate this logic with claiming that if you opposed the Government style of Nazi Germany , that means you are anti-government in general .
Does n't make sense when you think about it , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the folks saying it's more "showing the nightmare that misuse of technology could bring".The misuse of technology, as companies such as Google and Microsoft start seeking out more and more contracts (already going on) with governments, military, and intelligence agencies all over the world are a very real an immediate threat.The last commenter hit the nail on the head.
It is this global corporate oligarchy, with plenty of contracts (among others)  with technology conglomerates, that are a threat to the future of this world, and the future of free society in general.Smart phones that spy on you, drone armies of thoughtless/indiscriminate killing machines, emails txt messages and other such things sent to the intelligence community and military.I would say, that is far different than say.
. .
inventing technology that is beneficial to humanity, such as... ohh...the internet, or a new way to perform surgery.Technology like anything else,isn't just one lump thing.
I would equate this logic with claiming that if you opposed the  Government style of Nazi Germany, that means you are anti-government in general.
Doesn't make sense when you think about it, does it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576894</id>
	<title>CHILD PLEASE!!! Eywa, their god,was supercomputer!</title>
	<author>idioto</author>
	<datestamp>1262001900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This movie is not anti-technology, the technology of the native is people is simply more naturalistic.   It is a tale of two different technologies, and different biologies.  The native people in this movie, further, all living life on the Pandora planet are equipped with network ports, although to the untrained eye it may appear to be bestial rape!  Despite some of the technological advantages of the Na'vi and their environment, it seems as if one disadvantage they face over their Earth counterparts is the lack of wireless technology.</p><p>If this movie is anti-tech, it is anti-wireless.  Need more evidence that the Na'vi despite their tribal appearance were actually addicted to their own brand of internet?  Here's what I care to say:</p><p>
&nbsp; They preserve their memories in organic computers, hence the type of double damage when the humans destroy their environment.  When the humans take out their sacred watchamacallit it's like if the genealogy.com servers exploded.  Oh my!</p><p>Seriously, there are tons of examples of this throughout the movie.  Of course, there is no monetary system on the planet.  Eywa controls the balance of life.  Oh wait, Eywa = Ebay.  On Pandora, life provides infrastructure and infrastructure adds value.  hey-yo!!!</p><p>Hopefully I've reached someone who gets it:  this movie is convoluted in its themes.  I'm not going to analyze it beyond 3-D effects in any depth.  It borrows and clusterfux weird analogies from all over the place and if you try to add it all up (assuming you can pick up on it) and apply its message to the world we live in you need to find a new moral compass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This movie is not anti-technology , the technology of the native is people is simply more naturalistic .
It is a tale of two different technologies , and different biologies .
The native people in this movie , further , all living life on the Pandora planet are equipped with network ports , although to the untrained eye it may appear to be bestial rape !
Despite some of the technological advantages of the Na'vi and their environment , it seems as if one disadvantage they face over their Earth counterparts is the lack of wireless technology.If this movie is anti-tech , it is anti-wireless .
Need more evidence that the Na'vi despite their tribal appearance were actually addicted to their own brand of internet ?
Here 's what I care to say :   They preserve their memories in organic computers , hence the type of double damage when the humans destroy their environment .
When the humans take out their sacred watchamacallit it 's like if the genealogy.com servers exploded .
Oh my ! Seriously , there are tons of examples of this throughout the movie .
Of course , there is no monetary system on the planet .
Eywa controls the balance of life .
Oh wait , Eywa = Ebay .
On Pandora , life provides infrastructure and infrastructure adds value .
hey-yo ! ! ! Hopefully I 've reached someone who gets it : this movie is convoluted in its themes .
I 'm not going to analyze it beyond 3-D effects in any depth .
It borrows and clusterfux weird analogies from all over the place and if you try to add it all up ( assuming you can pick up on it ) and apply its message to the world we live in you need to find a new moral compass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This movie is not anti-technology, the technology of the native is people is simply more naturalistic.
It is a tale of two different technologies, and different biologies.
The native people in this movie, further, all living life on the Pandora planet are equipped with network ports, although to the untrained eye it may appear to be bestial rape!
Despite some of the technological advantages of the Na'vi and their environment, it seems as if one disadvantage they face over their Earth counterparts is the lack of wireless technology.If this movie is anti-tech, it is anti-wireless.
Need more evidence that the Na'vi despite their tribal appearance were actually addicted to their own brand of internet?
Here's what I care to say:
  They preserve their memories in organic computers, hence the type of double damage when the humans destroy their environment.
When the humans take out their sacred watchamacallit it's like if the genealogy.com servers exploded.
Oh my!Seriously, there are tons of examples of this throughout the movie.
Of course, there is no monetary system on the planet.
Eywa controls the balance of life.
Oh wait, Eywa = Ebay.
On Pandora, life provides infrastructure and infrastructure adds value.
hey-yo!!!Hopefully I've reached someone who gets it:  this movie is convoluted in its themes.
I'm not going to analyze it beyond 3-D effects in any depth.
It borrows and clusterfux weird analogies from all over the place and if you try to add it all up (assuming you can pick up on it) and apply its message to the world we live in you need to find a new moral compass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570872</id>
	<title>Is "anti-technology" really the message?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262014800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it truly an anti-technology message, or a warning against the misuse of technology?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it truly an anti-technology message , or a warning against the misuse of technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it truly an anti-technology message, or a warning against the misuse of technology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572466</id>
	<title>Re:Taken out of context, clearly.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262022720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We, as humans, abuse things by nature</i></p><p>We're not the only species that does that, and possibly all do. Elephants will make a green area into a desert. Before there was multicellular life, the anarobic bacteria changed the earth's entire atmosphere, filling it with the deadly oxygen. Those life forms that couldn't adapt to the poisonous atmosphere went extinct.</p><p>It's not human nature to abuse nature, nature abuses itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We , as humans , abuse things by natureWe 're not the only species that does that , and possibly all do .
Elephants will make a green area into a desert .
Before there was multicellular life , the anarobic bacteria changed the earth 's entire atmosphere , filling it with the deadly oxygen .
Those life forms that could n't adapt to the poisonous atmosphere went extinct.It 's not human nature to abuse nature , nature abuses itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We, as humans, abuse things by natureWe're not the only species that does that, and possibly all do.
Elephants will make a green area into a desert.
Before there was multicellular life, the anarobic bacteria changed the earth's entire atmosphere, filling it with the deadly oxygen.
Those life forms that couldn't adapt to the poisonous atmosphere went extinct.It's not human nature to abuse nature, nature abuses itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571736</id>
	<title>Re:The Anti-American...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262019240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...stuff was worse than the anti-tech stuff.  Dances With Wolves in space.  Bah.  Hollywood hates the culture and technology that allow it to exist.</p><p>Don't waste your money, go see Sherlock Holmes.</p></div><p>So, Imperialism and warmongering is what allows Hollywood to exist?  The film isn't anti-american, it's anti-"You've got what we want and we are going to take it"  I saw it and enjoyed it and more Americans seem to agree than those who will see Sherlock Holmes, which from most reviews seems to be average at best.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...stuff was worse than the anti-tech stuff .
Dances With Wolves in space .
Bah. Hollywood hates the culture and technology that allow it to exist.Do n't waste your money , go see Sherlock Holmes.So , Imperialism and warmongering is what allows Hollywood to exist ?
The film is n't anti-american , it 's anti- " You 've got what we want and we are going to take it " I saw it and enjoyed it and more Americans seem to agree than those who will see Sherlock Holmes , which from most reviews seems to be average at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...stuff was worse than the anti-tech stuff.
Dances With Wolves in space.
Bah.  Hollywood hates the culture and technology that allow it to exist.Don't waste your money, go see Sherlock Holmes.So, Imperialism and warmongering is what allows Hollywood to exist?
The film isn't anti-american, it's anti-"You've got what we want and we are going to take it"  I saw it and enjoyed it and more Americans seem to agree than those who will see Sherlock Holmes, which from most reviews seems to be average at best.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571654</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1262018880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you even watch the same movie I did? I thought it was obvious that Cameron was saying that violence and killing for food or survival is perfectly normal and acceptable. If wolves and bears attack you, then you defend yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you even watch the same movie I did ?
I thought it was obvious that Cameron was saying that violence and killing for food or survival is perfectly normal and acceptable .
If wolves and bears attack you , then you defend yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you even watch the same movie I did?
I thought it was obvious that Cameron was saying that violence and killing for food or survival is perfectly normal and acceptable.
If wolves and bears attack you, then you defend yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575284</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1261992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil.</p></div><p>In 2003, Halliburton was given an exclusive no-bid contract to handle all existing oil wells and delivery. They brought in their own (American) workers in preference to local talent. That arrangement didn't work out too well for them, but it wasn't for lack of effort. Most of Iraq's oil production has been contracted out to international corporations. The grunt work might be done by locals, but the leadership positions and guaranteed profits go elsewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil.In 2003 , Halliburton was given an exclusive no-bid contract to handle all existing oil wells and delivery .
They brought in their own ( American ) workers in preference to local talent .
That arrangement did n't work out too well for them , but it was n't for lack of effort .
Most of Iraq 's oil production has been contracted out to international corporations .
The grunt work might be done by locals , but the leadership positions and guaranteed profits go elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil.In 2003, Halliburton was given an exclusive no-bid contract to handle all existing oil wells and delivery.
They brought in their own (American) workers in preference to local talent.
That arrangement didn't work out too well for them, but it wasn't for lack of effort.
Most of Iraq's oil production has been contracted out to international corporations.
The grunt work might be done by locals, but the leadership positions and guaranteed profits go elsewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572204</id>
	<title>"anti" is in the eye of the beholder</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1262021580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not antitechnology. Its not anti "might makes right", since the might of the Pandora sentience wins. Its not anti anything. Its a movie. Any negative associations are in the mind of YOU the viewer.</p><p>Personally, I think that if the management of the corporation in the movie had any skill at all, they would have recognized that the Na'vi would fuck them over militarily in a standard engagement and nuked them from orbit. Or they could have drilled under the tree from a mile away Or countless other possibilities. But that's because I tend to believe that management in large corporations is defective - so that's what this movie is about for me.</p><p>Perhaps someone from a culture where such things happen, and who personally doesn't like it, would have thought that this movie was anti-arranged-marriage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not antitechnology .
Its not anti " might makes right " , since the might of the Pandora sentience wins .
Its not anti anything .
Its a movie .
Any negative associations are in the mind of YOU the viewer.Personally , I think that if the management of the corporation in the movie had any skill at all , they would have recognized that the Na'vi would fuck them over militarily in a standard engagement and nuked them from orbit .
Or they could have drilled under the tree from a mile away Or countless other possibilities .
But that 's because I tend to believe that management in large corporations is defective - so that 's what this movie is about for me.Perhaps someone from a culture where such things happen , and who personally does n't like it , would have thought that this movie was anti-arranged-marriage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not antitechnology.
Its not anti "might makes right", since the might of the Pandora sentience wins.
Its not anti anything.
Its a movie.
Any negative associations are in the mind of YOU the viewer.Personally, I think that if the management of the corporation in the movie had any skill at all, they would have recognized that the Na'vi would fuck them over militarily in a standard engagement and nuked them from orbit.
Or they could have drilled under the tree from a mile away Or countless other possibilities.
But that's because I tend to believe that management in large corporations is defective - so that's what this movie is about for me.Perhaps someone from a culture where such things happen, and who personally doesn't like it, would have thought that this movie was anti-arranged-marriage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896</id>
	<title>I got something different from that movie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262014920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had. The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were. Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have. The thing is, they didn't develop weapons. Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.</p><p>What new possibilities could this technology have had? could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5? I'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had .
The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were .
Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have .
The thing is , they did n't develop weapons .
Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.What new possibilities could this technology have had ?
could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5 ?
I 'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had.
The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were.
Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have.
The thing is, they didn't develop weapons.
Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.What new possibilities could this technology have had?
could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5?
I'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578154</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1262011920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You're my hero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're my hero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You're my hero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575524</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1261994160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But did they evolve that way due to artificial or natural selectors? I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if it described the Navi as cultivating their environment or simply reacting to it.
<br> <br>
You don't have to understand Mendel diagrams to be good at crop bioengineering(although it can make the process much more efficient).</htmltext>
<tokenext>But did they evolve that way due to artificial or natural selectors ?
I have n't seen the movie yet , so I do n't know if it described the Navi as cultivating their environment or simply reacting to it .
You do n't have to understand Mendel diagrams to be good at crop bioengineering ( although it can make the process much more efficient ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But did they evolve that way due to artificial or natural selectors?
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if it described the Navi as cultivating their environment or simply reacting to it.
You don't have to understand Mendel diagrams to be good at crop bioengineering(although it can make the process much more efficient).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573288</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262026020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find the people who bring up race when it's not the topic at hand are the racists of the planet. (Think Limbaugh's stint as an NFL analyst). That's EXACTLY what I thought about this review when I got to that section.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the people who bring up race when it 's not the topic at hand are the racists of the planet .
( Think Limbaugh 's stint as an NFL analyst ) .
That 's EXACTLY what I thought about this review when I got to that section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the people who bring up race when it's not the topic at hand are the racists of the planet.
(Think Limbaugh's stint as an NFL analyst).
That's EXACTLY what I thought about this review when I got to that section.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30584904</id>
	<title>Unobtainium?  Seriously?</title>
	<author>RapmasterT</author>
	<datestamp>1262116860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing like some hollywood jackass to use some cool sounding word without bothering to find out what it means.  The very concept of a "rich deposit" of unobtanium is an oxymoron.

It's kind of like saying "that prostitute has the biggest client list because she's a virgin"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing like some hollywood jackass to use some cool sounding word without bothering to find out what it means .
The very concept of a " rich deposit " of unobtanium is an oxymoron .
It 's kind of like saying " that prostitute has the biggest client list because she 's a virgin "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing like some hollywood jackass to use some cool sounding word without bothering to find out what it means.
The very concept of a "rich deposit" of unobtanium is an oxymoron.
It's kind of like saying "that prostitute has the biggest client list because she's a virgin"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570954</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1262015220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they couldnt defend themselves from high tech humans. (Well, atleast without human help<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:))<br> <br>

Primitive in certain aspects, high-tech in certain aspects I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they couldnt defend themselves from high tech humans .
( Well , atleast without human help : ) ) Primitive in certain aspects , high-tech in certain aspects I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they couldnt defend themselves from high tech humans.
(Well, atleast without human help :)) 

Primitive in certain aspects, high-tech in certain aspects I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572020</id>
	<title>Hippies?</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1262020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hippies say they're green and want to save mother earth yet they increase their carbon footprint by burning copious amounts of marijuana.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hippies say they 're green and want to save mother earth yet they increase their carbon footprint by burning copious amounts of marijuana .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hippies say they're green and want to save mother earth yet they increase their carbon footprint by burning copious amounts of marijuana.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573954</id>
	<title>The irony</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1262029320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't take the whole Avatar-as-greenie movie since we're being bombarded by Mickey D's "Avatar Happy Meal" commercials! I mean, doesn't this hypocrisy annoy anyone else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't take the whole Avatar-as-greenie movie since we 're being bombarded by Mickey D 's " Avatar Happy Meal " commercials !
I mean , does n't this hypocrisy annoy anyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't take the whole Avatar-as-greenie movie since we're being bombarded by Mickey D's "Avatar Happy Meal" commercials!
I mean, doesn't this hypocrisy annoy anyone else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571850</id>
	<title>Re:I was rooting for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262019780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the blue people ever since they revealed what they were doing with the natives.</p><p>The takeover of the Native Americans, and the slavery of Africans, were the two most savage acts the United States every did.  There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed.  I wouldn't be surprised after they went home there was some type of investigation and charges filed against the CEO and other people within the company for genocide.  This is why we need to remember out past, or we will be doomed to repeat it.</p><p>A long time ago when we justified the hostile takeover of Native Americans, we considered them as "savages."  Guess who the real savages were?</p><p>Like the posters before me have said, this isn't a statement on anti-technology, but how technology needs to be responsibly used.</p></div><p>Don't limit yourself to the history of the United States please. There is plenty of shame to go around the World for every empire or power that ever existed. Then you will realize that it wasn't necessarily "The United States did this or did that bad thing" but it is "Humans quest for power has no limits on one another."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the blue people ever since they revealed what they were doing with the natives.The takeover of the Native Americans , and the slavery of Africans , were the two most savage acts the United States every did .
There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed .
I would n't be surprised after they went home there was some type of investigation and charges filed against the CEO and other people within the company for genocide .
This is why we need to remember out past , or we will be doomed to repeat it.A long time ago when we justified the hostile takeover of Native Americans , we considered them as " savages .
" Guess who the real savages were ? Like the posters before me have said , this is n't a statement on anti-technology , but how technology needs to be responsibly used.Do n't limit yourself to the history of the United States please .
There is plenty of shame to go around the World for every empire or power that ever existed .
Then you will realize that it was n't necessarily " The United States did this or did that bad thing " but it is " Humans quest for power has no limits on one another .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the blue people ever since they revealed what they were doing with the natives.The takeover of the Native Americans, and the slavery of Africans, were the two most savage acts the United States every did.
There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed.
I wouldn't be surprised after they went home there was some type of investigation and charges filed against the CEO and other people within the company for genocide.
This is why we need to remember out past, or we will be doomed to repeat it.A long time ago when we justified the hostile takeover of Native Americans, we considered them as "savages.
"  Guess who the real savages were?Like the posters before me have said, this isn't a statement on anti-technology, but how technology needs to be responsibly used.Don't limit yourself to the history of the United States please.
There is plenty of shame to go around the World for every empire or power that ever existed.
Then you will realize that it wasn't necessarily "The United States did this or did that bad thing" but it is "Humans quest for power has no limits on one another.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574570</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262032200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Here, the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.</i> You must be using a definition of "little" that I am unfamiliar with; the "smurfy" aliens are in fact 10 feet tall (and play a mean game of basketball).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things .
You must be using a definition of " little " that I am unfamiliar with ; the " smurfy " aliens are in fact 10 feet tall ( and play a mean game of basketball ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.
You must be using a definition of "little" that I am unfamiliar with; the "smurfy" aliens are in fact 10 feet tall (and play a mean game of basketball).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576028</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1261996560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well?  Maybe as "accidental" as evolution.<br>Maybe as accidental as the evolution of the human brain's ability to create technology.</p><p>I'm not really sure I see a distinction when you boil it all down.</p><p>Did the Nav'i apologize to their food before killing it?  Sure.  Did the "sky people" apologize to their food (the Nav'i) before killing them? No.</p><p>I see this movie really not about whether technology is good or bad, or whether having a "primitive" culture is inferior or superior.  From my perspective, I'd rather have our advanced medical technology, and a taboo against things like cannibalism.  The vote's still out, I guess, on whether I'm happy with the capacity for waging nuclear war.  Because in Nav'i terms, if I were one of those, Eowa screwed up, and created a defective Nav'i.  I would have absolutely not survived childhood "in the wild".  "Magic biological technology" or no.  Better off that I get to upload my essence to the global nirvanna-net?  That's really such an abstract concept, it's not worth discussing.</p><p>What this movie was actually about was mutual respect among intelligent beings.  Jake's brother was killed over "pieces of paper in his pocket".  Jake was crippled - and could have been "repaired", had he been a wealthy person.  There was no mutual respect among the "sky people".  There was no connection between any two of them.</p><p>The culture of the Nav'i had that mutual respect for each other.  The story indicates they had the respect for the "sky people" at first.  Until they learned the alien concept of disrespect - from the "sky people".</p><p>Global brain-networks, flying mountains, and a jungle full of vicious creatures that will eat you, or follow your telepathic commands (scratching my brain trying to figure out how any of that symbiosis would work. . . ) - are just plot devices, intended to deliver a story.  The science is pretty slim here, even though they tried to explain it to the audience, in block letters, with crayon.</p><p>The story is really not much different than any other story James Cameron has told in his career.  His disappointment in his fellow man's failure to live up to an ideal, of mutual respect.  In reality - if you look at most of the "native" cultures that have been wiped out by white-man's imperialism and colonialism; (and don't fool yourselves. . . non-whites were hot on our trails, remember who reached the new world, and slaughtered the indigenous tribes of central and south America before the northern europeans got there - that's right, the Spanish) - these tribes may have had a culture that included an ideal of balance and harmony with nature.  Most of them were also brutally patriarchal. Most of them practiced every old sort of violent warfare against their neighbor tribes. Some tribes, on their own, with no help from "whitey" - wreaked all kinds of havok on their environment, (including records of aborigines setting huge brushfires to flush-out game in massive hunts).  After all - native people are still. . . people.  We all do what we do.  To survive.  We like to think of ourselves as "noble savages".  But we are, actually just savages.  How else do you think we made it to the top of the food chain. And there we'll stay. Until either we deplete the resources we need to survive, or until something bigger and badder comes along and knocks us off the top of the hill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well ?
Maybe as " accidental " as evolution.Maybe as accidental as the evolution of the human brain 's ability to create technology.I 'm not really sure I see a distinction when you boil it all down.Did the Nav'i apologize to their food before killing it ?
Sure. Did the " sky people " apologize to their food ( the Nav'i ) before killing them ?
No.I see this movie really not about whether technology is good or bad , or whether having a " primitive " culture is inferior or superior .
From my perspective , I 'd rather have our advanced medical technology , and a taboo against things like cannibalism .
The vote 's still out , I guess , on whether I 'm happy with the capacity for waging nuclear war .
Because in Nav'i terms , if I were one of those , Eowa screwed up , and created a defective Nav'i .
I would have absolutely not survived childhood " in the wild " .
" Magic biological technology " or no .
Better off that I get to upload my essence to the global nirvanna-net ?
That 's really such an abstract concept , it 's not worth discussing.What this movie was actually about was mutual respect among intelligent beings .
Jake 's brother was killed over " pieces of paper in his pocket " .
Jake was crippled - and could have been " repaired " , had he been a wealthy person .
There was no mutual respect among the " sky people " .
There was no connection between any two of them.The culture of the Nav'i had that mutual respect for each other .
The story indicates they had the respect for the " sky people " at first .
Until they learned the alien concept of disrespect - from the " sky people " .Global brain-networks , flying mountains , and a jungle full of vicious creatures that will eat you , or follow your telepathic commands ( scratching my brain trying to figure out how any of that symbiosis would work .
. .
) - are just plot devices , intended to deliver a story .
The science is pretty slim here , even though they tried to explain it to the audience , in block letters , with crayon.The story is really not much different than any other story James Cameron has told in his career .
His disappointment in his fellow man 's failure to live up to an ideal , of mutual respect .
In reality - if you look at most of the " native " cultures that have been wiped out by white-man 's imperialism and colonialism ; ( and do n't fool yourselves .
. .
non-whites were hot on our trails , remember who reached the new world , and slaughtered the indigenous tribes of central and south America before the northern europeans got there - that 's right , the Spanish ) - these tribes may have had a culture that included an ideal of balance and harmony with nature .
Most of them were also brutally patriarchal .
Most of them practiced every old sort of violent warfare against their neighbor tribes .
Some tribes , on their own , with no help from " whitey " - wreaked all kinds of havok on their environment , ( including records of aborigines setting huge brushfires to flush-out game in massive hunts ) .
After all - native people are still .
. .
people. We all do what we do .
To survive .
We like to think of ourselves as " noble savages " .
But we are , actually just savages .
How else do you think we made it to the top of the food chain .
And there we 'll stay .
Until either we deplete the resources we need to survive , or until something bigger and badder comes along and knocks us off the top of the hill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well?
Maybe as "accidental" as evolution.Maybe as accidental as the evolution of the human brain's ability to create technology.I'm not really sure I see a distinction when you boil it all down.Did the Nav'i apologize to their food before killing it?
Sure.  Did the "sky people" apologize to their food (the Nav'i) before killing them?
No.I see this movie really not about whether technology is good or bad, or whether having a "primitive" culture is inferior or superior.
From my perspective, I'd rather have our advanced medical technology, and a taboo against things like cannibalism.
The vote's still out, I guess, on whether I'm happy with the capacity for waging nuclear war.
Because in Nav'i terms, if I were one of those, Eowa screwed up, and created a defective Nav'i.
I would have absolutely not survived childhood "in the wild".
"Magic biological technology" or no.
Better off that I get to upload my essence to the global nirvanna-net?
That's really such an abstract concept, it's not worth discussing.What this movie was actually about was mutual respect among intelligent beings.
Jake's brother was killed over "pieces of paper in his pocket".
Jake was crippled - and could have been "repaired", had he been a wealthy person.
There was no mutual respect among the "sky people".
There was no connection between any two of them.The culture of the Nav'i had that mutual respect for each other.
The story indicates they had the respect for the "sky people" at first.
Until they learned the alien concept of disrespect - from the "sky people".Global brain-networks, flying mountains, and a jungle full of vicious creatures that will eat you, or follow your telepathic commands (scratching my brain trying to figure out how any of that symbiosis would work.
. .
) - are just plot devices, intended to deliver a story.
The science is pretty slim here, even though they tried to explain it to the audience, in block letters, with crayon.The story is really not much different than any other story James Cameron has told in his career.
His disappointment in his fellow man's failure to live up to an ideal, of mutual respect.
In reality - if you look at most of the "native" cultures that have been wiped out by white-man's imperialism and colonialism; (and don't fool yourselves.
. .
non-whites were hot on our trails, remember who reached the new world, and slaughtered the indigenous tribes of central and south America before the northern europeans got there - that's right, the Spanish) - these tribes may have had a culture that included an ideal of balance and harmony with nature.
Most of them were also brutally patriarchal.
Most of them practiced every old sort of violent warfare against their neighbor tribes.
Some tribes, on their own, with no help from "whitey" - wreaked all kinds of havok on their environment, (including records of aborigines setting huge brushfires to flush-out game in massive hunts).
After all - native people are still.
. .
people.  We all do what we do.
To survive.
We like to think of ourselves as "noble savages".
But we are, actually just savages.
How else do you think we made it to the top of the food chain.
And there we'll stay.
Until either we deplete the resources we need to survive, or until something bigger and badder comes along and knocks us off the top of the hill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573058</id>
	<title>tactech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar is not and 'anti-technology' film (even in a loose sense).<br>Technically, this "article" should be deleted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar is not and 'anti-technology ' film ( even in a loose sense ) .Technically , this " article " should be deleted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar is not and 'anti-technology' film (even in a loose sense).Technically, this "article" should be deleted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576626</id>
	<title>Re:The Anti-American...</title>
	<author>dafing</author>
	<datestamp>1262000160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love how whenever "hollywood" shows an image of Americans as NOT cowboys or Elvis, its somehow "unamerican"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
I'm a New Zealander and didnt really think "this is un american", although yes, I did realise "oh, hes probably pissed about all the wars in the middle east!"  Thats a little difficult to assume all the time though, every time an African American actor is in a movie, are they just there for "diversity"?  Or, like Samuel L Jackson, are they there because they are genuine stars?  I think its the same for plots, we cant just assume everything in a movie is some big attack on something we personally love and believe in.
<br> <br>
I'm vegan, and was more than a little pissed at the "animal" scenes.  The whole "tie 'em up, and jab your "thing" into them", and then the animals are instantly your property?  They just bow down to "humans"?  Very arrogant.  Very sexual too I thought.  But that could just me being overly sensitive.  I also didnt like the "kill an animal and pray over it, that makes it fine".  They spout off some bullshit "oh brother, I realise now that we will become one, I respect you and your body will become "one" with "the people"".  Did Camron make this movie to piss off patriotic Americans and New Zealand Vegans?  Who knows!
<br> <br>
Perhaps we put ourselves in movies when we shouldnt, reading personal attacks in what happens on screen, when really, there was no hidden meaning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how whenever " hollywood " shows an image of Americans as NOT cowboys or Elvis , its somehow " unamerican " : ) I 'm a New Zealander and didnt really think " this is un american " , although yes , I did realise " oh , hes probably pissed about all the wars in the middle east !
" Thats a little difficult to assume all the time though , every time an African American actor is in a movie , are they just there for " diversity " ?
Or , like Samuel L Jackson , are they there because they are genuine stars ?
I think its the same for plots , we cant just assume everything in a movie is some big attack on something we personally love and believe in .
I 'm vegan , and was more than a little pissed at the " animal " scenes .
The whole " tie 'em up , and jab your " thing " into them " , and then the animals are instantly your property ?
They just bow down to " humans " ?
Very arrogant .
Very sexual too I thought .
But that could just me being overly sensitive .
I also didnt like the " kill an animal and pray over it , that makes it fine " .
They spout off some bullshit " oh brother , I realise now that we will become one , I respect you and your body will become " one " with " the people " " .
Did Camron make this movie to piss off patriotic Americans and New Zealand Vegans ?
Who knows !
Perhaps we put ourselves in movies when we shouldnt , reading personal attacks in what happens on screen , when really , there was no hidden meaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how whenever "hollywood" shows an image of Americans as NOT cowboys or Elvis, its somehow "unamerican" :)
 
I'm a New Zealander and didnt really think "this is un american", although yes, I did realise "oh, hes probably pissed about all the wars in the middle east!
"  Thats a little difficult to assume all the time though, every time an African American actor is in a movie, are they just there for "diversity"?
Or, like Samuel L Jackson, are they there because they are genuine stars?
I think its the same for plots, we cant just assume everything in a movie is some big attack on something we personally love and believe in.
I'm vegan, and was more than a little pissed at the "animal" scenes.
The whole "tie 'em up, and jab your "thing" into them", and then the animals are instantly your property?
They just bow down to "humans"?
Very arrogant.
Very sexual too I thought.
But that could just me being overly sensitive.
I also didnt like the "kill an animal and pray over it, that makes it fine".
They spout off some bullshit "oh brother, I realise now that we will become one, I respect you and your body will become "one" with "the people"".
Did Camron make this movie to piss off patriotic Americans and New Zealand Vegans?
Who knows!
Perhaps we put ourselves in movies when we shouldnt, reading personal attacks in what happens on screen, when really, there was no hidden meaning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575306</id>
	<title>Re:One doesn't have to be against x to moderate it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261992900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Conservatives have been wanting to chew Al Gore's eyeballs out ever since they found out that most of the data behind his theory was BS...</p></div><p>FIFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservatives have been wanting to chew Al Gore 's eyeballs out ever since they found out that most of the data behind his theory was BS...FIFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservatives have been wanting to chew Al Gore's eyeballs out ever since they found out that most of the data behind his theory was BS...FIFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571976</id>
	<title>Re:Curious.</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1262020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't dislike historical movies.  I saw about half of 300, but wasn't particularly impressed with it.  I majored in English Literature with a minor in Classical History, so I came to the movie with a bit of a different perspective than many people, having studied the actual event.  it just didn't really do it for me.<br><br>Similarly, I about damned near went berserk during the version of Beowulf which had Angelina Jolie in it.  I've read that poem over 300 times. I've translated it from the original myself.  That movie was straight up bullshit.<br><br>This movie seems to be of a new trend where poor story telling is "made up for" by fancy graphics to bring people into the theatre.  The entirety of the new Star Wars trilogy was the same.  300 also made use of fancy graphics to make up for poor historical accuracy.<br><br>If they wanted to make a film about the American Indians, that's cool.  I'd go see it if were weren't dressed up in computer-generated smurfs, poorly masked allegorical names, and a bunch of other bullshit.<br><br>I also tend not to really dig on science fiction films that much.  I did enjoy Firefly/Serenity, and some older movies are pretty cool.  I was a major fan of Jurassic Park, which of course uses Malcolm's rants to inject the commentary and opinion on man manipulating nature that was clearly the point of the whole exercise.<br><br>So, I think that this mostly has to do with my dislike of "blockbuster" type films than it does with the story per-se.  Maybe I'm a pretentious private-school polo-shirt wearer who just happens to make his living off of a high school hobby that was spawned from my un-willingness to do math by hand rather than a "true geek" who eeks out over flashy graphics.  Chances are I'm a total jerk like that.<br><br>But its not because I think that Indians got a raw deal and I don't want to be reminded that my great grandfather graduated West Point in 1883, was commissioned in the cavalry and actually did fight indians (incidentally, he was born on a plantation in 1853 and my family did own slaves, so I'm pretty much directly in line for blame of all the bad things to happen in this country).  I just don't want to watch a bunch of computer-generated blue people fight against future East India Company because they couldn't find actors like Jimmy Stewart, Steve McQueen or Paul Newman 'cause the "movie stars" and the animators drove all the story telling and art out of mass-market film, causing me to have to suffer through the weird-ass shit on IFC if I want to see something where they're at least trying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't dislike historical movies .
I saw about half of 300 , but was n't particularly impressed with it .
I majored in English Literature with a minor in Classical History , so I came to the movie with a bit of a different perspective than many people , having studied the actual event .
it just did n't really do it for me.Similarly , I about damned near went berserk during the version of Beowulf which had Angelina Jolie in it .
I 've read that poem over 300 times .
I 've translated it from the original myself .
That movie was straight up bullshit.This movie seems to be of a new trend where poor story telling is " made up for " by fancy graphics to bring people into the theatre .
The entirety of the new Star Wars trilogy was the same .
300 also made use of fancy graphics to make up for poor historical accuracy.If they wanted to make a film about the American Indians , that 's cool .
I 'd go see it if were were n't dressed up in computer-generated smurfs , poorly masked allegorical names , and a bunch of other bullshit.I also tend not to really dig on science fiction films that much .
I did enjoy Firefly/Serenity , and some older movies are pretty cool .
I was a major fan of Jurassic Park , which of course uses Malcolm 's rants to inject the commentary and opinion on man manipulating nature that was clearly the point of the whole exercise.So , I think that this mostly has to do with my dislike of " blockbuster " type films than it does with the story per-se .
Maybe I 'm a pretentious private-school polo-shirt wearer who just happens to make his living off of a high school hobby that was spawned from my un-willingness to do math by hand rather than a " true geek " who eeks out over flashy graphics .
Chances are I 'm a total jerk like that.But its not because I think that Indians got a raw deal and I do n't want to be reminded that my great grandfather graduated West Point in 1883 , was commissioned in the cavalry and actually did fight indians ( incidentally , he was born on a plantation in 1853 and my family did own slaves , so I 'm pretty much directly in line for blame of all the bad things to happen in this country ) .
I just do n't want to watch a bunch of computer-generated blue people fight against future East India Company because they could n't find actors like Jimmy Stewart , Steve McQueen or Paul Newman 'cause the " movie stars " and the animators drove all the story telling and art out of mass-market film , causing me to have to suffer through the weird-ass shit on IFC if I want to see something where they 're at least trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't dislike historical movies.
I saw about half of 300, but wasn't particularly impressed with it.
I majored in English Literature with a minor in Classical History, so I came to the movie with a bit of a different perspective than many people, having studied the actual event.
it just didn't really do it for me.Similarly, I about damned near went berserk during the version of Beowulf which had Angelina Jolie in it.
I've read that poem over 300 times.
I've translated it from the original myself.
That movie was straight up bullshit.This movie seems to be of a new trend where poor story telling is "made up for" by fancy graphics to bring people into the theatre.
The entirety of the new Star Wars trilogy was the same.
300 also made use of fancy graphics to make up for poor historical accuracy.If they wanted to make a film about the American Indians, that's cool.
I'd go see it if were weren't dressed up in computer-generated smurfs, poorly masked allegorical names, and a bunch of other bullshit.I also tend not to really dig on science fiction films that much.
I did enjoy Firefly/Serenity, and some older movies are pretty cool.
I was a major fan of Jurassic Park, which of course uses Malcolm's rants to inject the commentary and opinion on man manipulating nature that was clearly the point of the whole exercise.So, I think that this mostly has to do with my dislike of "blockbuster" type films than it does with the story per-se.
Maybe I'm a pretentious private-school polo-shirt wearer who just happens to make his living off of a high school hobby that was spawned from my un-willingness to do math by hand rather than a "true geek" who eeks out over flashy graphics.
Chances are I'm a total jerk like that.But its not because I think that Indians got a raw deal and I don't want to be reminded that my great grandfather graduated West Point in 1883, was commissioned in the cavalry and actually did fight indians (incidentally, he was born on a plantation in 1853 and my family did own slaves, so I'm pretty much directly in line for blame of all the bad things to happen in this country).
I just don't want to watch a bunch of computer-generated blue people fight against future East India Company because they couldn't find actors like Jimmy Stewart, Steve McQueen or Paul Newman 'cause the "movie stars" and the animators drove all the story telling and art out of mass-market film, causing me to have to suffer through the weird-ass shit on IFC if I want to see something where they're at least trying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571950</id>
	<title>Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1262020260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems we slashdotted bugmenot for a second there, so here's a Google Cache of <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E3DF143BF934A25755C0A9639C8B63&amp;sec=&amp;spon=&amp;pagewanted=all" title="nytimes.com">Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out</a> [nytimes.com].</p><p>I have a series of complaints for ThousandStars for using this during the submission...</p><p>1) Its a couple of paragraphs.  SURELY you could have paraphrased it.</p><p>2) Its an unsourced op-ed piece.  By Neal Stephenson, whoever-in-the-hell that is.</p><p>3) It is over four years old, and centers on Revenge of the Sith.</p><p>4) We just had a <a href="http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/1637235/The-Definitive-Evisceration-of-The-Phantom-Menace-NSFW" title="slashdot.org">slashdot</a> [slashdot.org] piece on the exact same topic that went into a lot more detail.  The conclusion drawn by THAT discussion was vastly more conversation-worthy.</p><p>This is the entire point he is trying to make:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Modern English has given us two terms we need to explain this phenomenon: ''geeking out'' and ''vegging out.'' To geek out on something means to immerse yourself in its details to an extent that is distinctly abnormal -- and to have a good time doing it. To veg out, by contrast, means to enter a passive state and allow sounds and images to wash over you without troubling yourself too much about what it all means.</p></div><p>Some geek out, some veg out, and content that suits both is popular.  Well, gee, ThousandStars, that really is deep.  Lets ponder that for about half a second so we can really comprehend it.  Lets not stop for a moment to assume that Lucas is just a bad author.  No, no, no.  There's magic behind the curtain.  Right.</p><p>How is this part of the answer about the presumed conflict between technology and anti-technology?  Is the enlightenment that the people making the movies don't really care, and that only plot-geeks would pick up on this?</p><p>Look, I know that a lot of people don't click the links.  I get it.  Please stop punishing those of us that do.  Thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems we slashdotted bugmenot for a second there , so here 's a Google Cache of Turn On , Tune In , Veg Out [ nytimes.com ] .I have a series of complaints for ThousandStars for using this during the submission...1 ) Its a couple of paragraphs .
SURELY you could have paraphrased it.2 ) Its an unsourced op-ed piece .
By Neal Stephenson , whoever-in-the-hell that is.3 ) It is over four years old , and centers on Revenge of the Sith.4 ) We just had a slashdot [ slashdot.org ] piece on the exact same topic that went into a lot more detail .
The conclusion drawn by THAT discussion was vastly more conversation-worthy.This is the entire point he is trying to make : Modern English has given us two terms we need to explain this phenomenon : ''geeking out' ' and ''vegging out .
' ' To geek out on something means to immerse yourself in its details to an extent that is distinctly abnormal -- and to have a good time doing it .
To veg out , by contrast , means to enter a passive state and allow sounds and images to wash over you without troubling yourself too much about what it all means.Some geek out , some veg out , and content that suits both is popular .
Well , gee , ThousandStars , that really is deep .
Lets ponder that for about half a second so we can really comprehend it .
Lets not stop for a moment to assume that Lucas is just a bad author .
No , no , no .
There 's magic behind the curtain .
Right.How is this part of the answer about the presumed conflict between technology and anti-technology ?
Is the enlightenment that the people making the movies do n't really care , and that only plot-geeks would pick up on this ? Look , I know that a lot of people do n't click the links .
I get it .
Please stop punishing those of us that do .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems we slashdotted bugmenot for a second there, so here's a Google Cache of Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out [nytimes.com].I have a series of complaints for ThousandStars for using this during the submission...1) Its a couple of paragraphs.
SURELY you could have paraphrased it.2) Its an unsourced op-ed piece.
By Neal Stephenson, whoever-in-the-hell that is.3) It is over four years old, and centers on Revenge of the Sith.4) We just had a slashdot [slashdot.org] piece on the exact same topic that went into a lot more detail.
The conclusion drawn by THAT discussion was vastly more conversation-worthy.This is the entire point he is trying to make:Modern English has given us two terms we need to explain this phenomenon: ''geeking out'' and ''vegging out.
'' To geek out on something means to immerse yourself in its details to an extent that is distinctly abnormal -- and to have a good time doing it.
To veg out, by contrast, means to enter a passive state and allow sounds and images to wash over you without troubling yourself too much about what it all means.Some geek out, some veg out, and content that suits both is popular.
Well, gee, ThousandStars, that really is deep.
Lets ponder that for about half a second so we can really comprehend it.
Lets not stop for a moment to assume that Lucas is just a bad author.
No, no, no.
There's magic behind the curtain.
Right.How is this part of the answer about the presumed conflict between technology and anti-technology?
Is the enlightenment that the people making the movies don't really care, and that only plot-geeks would pick up on this?Look, I know that a lot of people don't click the links.
I get it.
Please stop punishing those of us that do.
Thank you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574352</id>
	<title>that's funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262031120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the movie was anti-war, not anti technology. It looked to me like the problem wasn't technology, it was technology built around exploitation and extermination. The Navi had technology. In fact, their whole moon was one big networked communications system and super brain. If they lacked power, they made up for it in sophistication. The goal of their technology wasn't the exploitation and dominance of every other living thing, the goal was life worth living.</p><p>To me the message of the movie was very pro-technology. And the message was optimistic. The world can be a technological paradise, or it can be a hell, depending on our understanding of it. After all, biology is still the most complex and powerful technology on earth. Cameron is suggesting that movie technology is a good kind of high technology. He is saying that there is still time on earth to start using technology to improve our biosphere, and our life on earth, not flatten, pave and exploit it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the movie was anti-war , not anti technology .
It looked to me like the problem was n't technology , it was technology built around exploitation and extermination .
The Navi had technology .
In fact , their whole moon was one big networked communications system and super brain .
If they lacked power , they made up for it in sophistication .
The goal of their technology was n't the exploitation and dominance of every other living thing , the goal was life worth living.To me the message of the movie was very pro-technology .
And the message was optimistic .
The world can be a technological paradise , or it can be a hell , depending on our understanding of it .
After all , biology is still the most complex and powerful technology on earth .
Cameron is suggesting that movie technology is a good kind of high technology .
He is saying that there is still time on earth to start using technology to improve our biosphere , and our life on earth , not flatten , pave and exploit it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the movie was anti-war, not anti technology.
It looked to me like the problem wasn't technology, it was technology built around exploitation and extermination.
The Navi had technology.
In fact, their whole moon was one big networked communications system and super brain.
If they lacked power, they made up for it in sophistication.
The goal of their technology wasn't the exploitation and dominance of every other living thing, the goal was life worth living.To me the message of the movie was very pro-technology.
And the message was optimistic.
The world can be a technological paradise, or it can be a hell, depending on our understanding of it.
After all, biology is still the most complex and powerful technology on earth.
Cameron is suggesting that movie technology is a good kind of high technology.
He is saying that there is still time on earth to start using technology to improve our biosphere, and our life on earth, not flatten, pave and exploit it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571352</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1262017200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's really tood bad Cameron couldn't resist this little dig at what is called by some "the Bush Doctrine." Because if the movie is ever to be regarded as relevant, it will have the 'preemptive' dialog wart in it forever. It really dates the movie, and in a decade it'll no doubt look as out of place as the use of slang from the seventies looks out of place in B-movies of yesterday. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of vision, and it's nothing new or revelatory. It's not like any of us have never considered the negative consequences of preemption, and since the entire movie is made up--it forces the viewer to jump out of the movie to relate to it. Because the story became so heavy-handed at the end--including the warm-fuzzy-bloodsoaked ending--you really can take NOTHING from this movie, in terms of meaning. I work with military folks, and found myself wincing at the unbridled power the colonel in the movie had at his fingertips to unleash--which was absurd. It was a tired cliche' from the era of folks who still to this day fear that someone in the military is going to decide to go crazy one day and blow up everything--discrediting the discipline and moral courage of those who fight. So while the effects were stunning, the message a bloat of fastfood.

IMO, Cameron is really good at manipulating people's feelings--getting them all worked up into a frenzy of feel-good nonsense, which after a while we look back at it and think, "WTF!?" Case in point, Tit-anic, which, if you think about it, was another "interesting to observe, morally pointless" story that had people crooning over the ridiculous antics of a really stupid girl and boy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really tood bad Cameron could n't resist this little dig at what is called by some " the Bush Doctrine .
" Because if the movie is ever to be regarded as relevant , it will have the 'preemptive ' dialog wart in it forever .
It really dates the movie , and in a decade it 'll no doubt look as out of place as the use of slang from the seventies looks out of place in B-movies of yesterday .
It demonstrates a fundamental lack of vision , and it 's nothing new or revelatory .
It 's not like any of us have never considered the negative consequences of preemption , and since the entire movie is made up--it forces the viewer to jump out of the movie to relate to it .
Because the story became so heavy-handed at the end--including the warm-fuzzy-bloodsoaked ending--you really can take NOTHING from this movie , in terms of meaning .
I work with military folks , and found myself wincing at the unbridled power the colonel in the movie had at his fingertips to unleash--which was absurd .
It was a tired cliche ' from the era of folks who still to this day fear that someone in the military is going to decide to go crazy one day and blow up everything--discrediting the discipline and moral courage of those who fight .
So while the effects were stunning , the message a bloat of fastfood .
IMO , Cameron is really good at manipulating people 's feelings--getting them all worked up into a frenzy of feel-good nonsense , which after a while we look back at it and think , " WTF ! ?
" Case in point , Tit-anic , which , if you think about it , was another " interesting to observe , morally pointless " story that had people crooning over the ridiculous antics of a really stupid girl and boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really tood bad Cameron couldn't resist this little dig at what is called by some "the Bush Doctrine.
" Because if the movie is ever to be regarded as relevant, it will have the 'preemptive' dialog wart in it forever.
It really dates the movie, and in a decade it'll no doubt look as out of place as the use of slang from the seventies looks out of place in B-movies of yesterday.
It demonstrates a fundamental lack of vision, and it's nothing new or revelatory.
It's not like any of us have never considered the negative consequences of preemption, and since the entire movie is made up--it forces the viewer to jump out of the movie to relate to it.
Because the story became so heavy-handed at the end--including the warm-fuzzy-bloodsoaked ending--you really can take NOTHING from this movie, in terms of meaning.
I work with military folks, and found myself wincing at the unbridled power the colonel in the movie had at his fingertips to unleash--which was absurd.
It was a tired cliche' from the era of folks who still to this day fear that someone in the military is going to decide to go crazy one day and blow up everything--discrediting the discipline and moral courage of those who fight.
So while the effects were stunning, the message a bloat of fastfood.
IMO, Cameron is really good at manipulating people's feelings--getting them all worked up into a frenzy of feel-good nonsense, which after a while we look back at it and think, "WTF!?
" Case in point, Tit-anic, which, if you think about it, was another "interesting to observe, morally pointless" story that had people crooning over the ridiculous antics of a really stupid girl and boy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574680</id>
	<title>The "Avatar" that could have been...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262032800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html</p><p>Speaks much about what I am reading about in these threads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.htmlSpeaks much about what I am reading about in these threads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.htmlSpeaks much about what I am reading about in these threads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577118</id>
	<title>Wait a minute.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1262003700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If humans used technology to destroy their home planet, that wouldn't make *technology* bad.  Technology, unlike its wielders, has no choice in the matter.</p><p>Animals, of which humans are a kind, will destroy their environment if allowed to reproduce unchecked. If a grazing species strips the grass in its range bare and tramples all its seedlings, it suffers local extinction. Humans are mobile and adaptable, which means the range of our population is pretty much the entire surface of the planet.  It is quite conceivable that we can could drastically reduce the carrying capacity of the planet for humans by our actions, although I doubt we'll literally go extinct until the Sun's evolution destroys our planet.</p><p>Those grazing animals are not bad because they can destroy their local environment.  We are not bad because we can destroy our global environment.  We'd be bad, or at least stupid, if we used our adaptability to destroy the global carrying capacity for humans. We'd *definitely* be stupid to blame it on the tools we used.</p><p>The current human population of the planet exceeds what the planet could support if we suddenly decided to go back to medieval technology.  There are twenty times as many people on the Earth as there were in AD 1000. If we rolled back technology to that point, the Earth's habitats would be striped bare.  If the preservation of the Earth's biological systems is *good*, then technology is instrumental to that good.  The only other solution to preserving the Earth's ecology is to deliberately reduce the human population by 95\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If humans used technology to destroy their home planet , that would n't make * technology * bad .
Technology , unlike its wielders , has no choice in the matter.Animals , of which humans are a kind , will destroy their environment if allowed to reproduce unchecked .
If a grazing species strips the grass in its range bare and tramples all its seedlings , it suffers local extinction .
Humans are mobile and adaptable , which means the range of our population is pretty much the entire surface of the planet .
It is quite conceivable that we can could drastically reduce the carrying capacity of the planet for humans by our actions , although I doubt we 'll literally go extinct until the Sun 's evolution destroys our planet.Those grazing animals are not bad because they can destroy their local environment .
We are not bad because we can destroy our global environment .
We 'd be bad , or at least stupid , if we used our adaptability to destroy the global carrying capacity for humans .
We 'd * definitely * be stupid to blame it on the tools we used.The current human population of the planet exceeds what the planet could support if we suddenly decided to go back to medieval technology .
There are twenty times as many people on the Earth as there were in AD 1000 .
If we rolled back technology to that point , the Earth 's habitats would be striped bare .
If the preservation of the Earth 's biological systems is * good * , then technology is instrumental to that good .
The only other solution to preserving the Earth 's ecology is to deliberately reduce the human population by 95 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If humans used technology to destroy their home planet, that wouldn't make *technology* bad.
Technology, unlike its wielders, has no choice in the matter.Animals, of which humans are a kind, will destroy their environment if allowed to reproduce unchecked.
If a grazing species strips the grass in its range bare and tramples all its seedlings, it suffers local extinction.
Humans are mobile and adaptable, which means the range of our population is pretty much the entire surface of the planet.
It is quite conceivable that we can could drastically reduce the carrying capacity of the planet for humans by our actions, although I doubt we'll literally go extinct until the Sun's evolution destroys our planet.Those grazing animals are not bad because they can destroy their local environment.
We are not bad because we can destroy our global environment.
We'd be bad, or at least stupid, if we used our adaptability to destroy the global carrying capacity for humans.
We'd *definitely* be stupid to blame it on the tools we used.The current human population of the planet exceeds what the planet could support if we suddenly decided to go back to medieval technology.
There are twenty times as many people on the Earth as there were in AD 1000.
If we rolled back technology to that point, the Earth's habitats would be striped bare.
If the preservation of the Earth's biological systems is *good*, then technology is instrumental to that good.
The only other solution to preserving the Earth's ecology is to deliberately reduce the human population by 95\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573620</id>
	<title>Re:I was rooting for...</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1262027640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Don't limit yourself to the history of the United States please. There is plenty of shame to go around the World for every empire or power that ever existed. Then you will realize that it wasn't necessarily "The United States did this or did that bad thing" but it is "Humans quest for power has no limits on one another."</p></div></blockquote><p>
Aye.  The Native Americans weren't opposed to slaughtering each other for land, and black Africans sold their fellow black Africans into the slave trade.
</p><p>
Our ancestors were quite frequently bastards, no matter where you came from.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't limit yourself to the history of the United States please .
There is plenty of shame to go around the World for every empire or power that ever existed .
Then you will realize that it was n't necessarily " The United States did this or did that bad thing " but it is " Humans quest for power has no limits on one another .
" Aye .
The Native Americans were n't opposed to slaughtering each other for land , and black Africans sold their fellow black Africans into the slave trade .
Our ancestors were quite frequently bastards , no matter where you came from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't limit yourself to the history of the United States please.
There is plenty of shame to go around the World for every empire or power that ever existed.
Then you will realize that it wasn't necessarily "The United States did this or did that bad thing" but it is "Humans quest for power has no limits on one another.
"
Aye.
The Native Americans weren't opposed to slaughtering each other for land, and black Africans sold their fellow black Africans into the slave trade.
Our ancestors were quite frequently bastards, no matter where you came from.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571376</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1262017380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You find the fact that...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the politcal Left seem to embrace the the "Noble Savage" concept, but at the same time abhor anything that endangers children, hunting not to mention weapons, anything that violates animal rights, any type of violence, and any kind of spiritual ritutal</p></div><p>...to be what? I&rsquo;m actually curious...</p><p>I&rsquo;m going to have to disagree, though, on the spiritual rituals. The left <em>adores</em> native religions and spiritual customs. It&rsquo;s the Christians they despise for trying to proselytize the natives, and the Christian spiritual rituals that they hate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You find the fact that...the politcal Left seem to embrace the the " Noble Savage " concept , but at the same time abhor anything that endangers children , hunting not to mention weapons , anything that violates animal rights , any type of violence , and any kind of spiritual ritutal...to be what ?
I    m actually curious...I    m going to have to disagree , though , on the spiritual rituals .
The left adores native religions and spiritual customs .
It    s the Christians they despise for trying to proselytize the natives , and the Christian spiritual rituals that they hate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You find the fact that...the politcal Left seem to embrace the the "Noble Savage" concept, but at the same time abhor anything that endangers children, hunting not to mention weapons, anything that violates animal rights, any type of violence, and any kind of spiritual ritutal...to be what?
I’m actually curious...I’m going to have to disagree, though, on the spiritual rituals.
The left adores native religions and spiritual customs.
It’s the Christians they despise for trying to proselytize the natives, and the Christian spiritual rituals that they hate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571058</id>
	<title>Here's a quarter, go buy a clue</title>
	<author>clarktrip3</author>
	<datestamp>1262015640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen the movie twice and I'm a software engineer for a living.  This movie is not making a statement about technology.  It is making a statement that it is wrong to try to impose one peoples' way of living onto another people simply because they have something worth taking.  It is sheer human arrogance that has been repeated throughout our history.  It is highlighted by the statements in the movie shortly before the attack that stated (paraphrased) "that we tried to give them schools and roads."  That is simply saying everything we do is better than anything you do.  How many times has that been done on our dear Earth?  As everyone knows, the movie itself was made with the most advanced technology to date.  The plot involved using the most advanced technology in the future.  But it was not the technology causing the problem.  It was the greed driven decisions of the administrative and militant groups.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen the movie twice and I 'm a software engineer for a living .
This movie is not making a statement about technology .
It is making a statement that it is wrong to try to impose one peoples ' way of living onto another people simply because they have something worth taking .
It is sheer human arrogance that has been repeated throughout our history .
It is highlighted by the statements in the movie shortly before the attack that stated ( paraphrased ) " that we tried to give them schools and roads .
" That is simply saying everything we do is better than anything you do .
How many times has that been done on our dear Earth ?
As everyone knows , the movie itself was made with the most advanced technology to date .
The plot involved using the most advanced technology in the future .
But it was not the technology causing the problem .
It was the greed driven decisions of the administrative and militant groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen the movie twice and I'm a software engineer for a living.
This movie is not making a statement about technology.
It is making a statement that it is wrong to try to impose one peoples' way of living onto another people simply because they have something worth taking.
It is sheer human arrogance that has been repeated throughout our history.
It is highlighted by the statements in the movie shortly before the attack that stated (paraphrased) "that we tried to give them schools and roads.
"  That is simply saying everything we do is better than anything you do.
How many times has that been done on our dear Earth?
As everyone knows, the movie itself was made with the most advanced technology to date.
The plot involved using the most advanced technology in the future.
But it was not the technology causing the problem.
It was the greed driven decisions of the administrative and militant groups.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574264</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262030760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't exist to be productive, to make you a car and slave away for you, each individual has his or her own reason to exist, if that's what you believe then after retirement put a bullet in your brains because you are no longer productive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., or maybe earlier since ageing will increase your needs, thus the strain on society, does "25" years old seem a good moment to recycle your wasteful self?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't exist to be productive , to make you a car and slave away for you , each individual has his or her own reason to exist , if that 's what you believe then after retirement put a bullet in your brains because you are no longer productive ... , or maybe earlier since ageing will increase your needs , thus the strain on society , does " 25 " years old seem a good moment to recycle your wasteful self ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't exist to be productive, to make you a car and slave away for you, each individual has his or her own reason to exist, if that's what you believe then after retirement put a bullet in your brains because you are no longer productive ..., or maybe earlier since ageing will increase your needs, thus the strain on society, does "25" years old seem a good moment to recycle your wasteful self?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575084</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>jahudabudy</author>
	<datestamp>1261991820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the aspect of the natives' need for the hero that you missed is that none of the natives really believed in the power or brutality the humans were capable of unleashing.  They didn't need the hero to lead them in war b/c they didn't understand it (although, as the other poster pointed out, his intimate knowledge of the humans' strengths and tactics were uniquely useful).  They needed the hero b/c he was the only one that recognized the approaching danger and the massive mobilization effort necessary to respond effectively.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the aspect of the natives ' need for the hero that you missed is that none of the natives really believed in the power or brutality the humans were capable of unleashing .
They did n't need the hero to lead them in war b/c they did n't understand it ( although , as the other poster pointed out , his intimate knowledge of the humans ' strengths and tactics were uniquely useful ) .
They needed the hero b/c he was the only one that recognized the approaching danger and the massive mobilization effort necessary to respond effectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the aspect of the natives' need for the hero that you missed is that none of the natives really believed in the power or brutality the humans were capable of unleashing.
They didn't need the hero to lead them in war b/c they didn't understand it (although, as the other poster pointed out, his intimate knowledge of the humans' strengths and tactics were uniquely useful).
They needed the hero b/c he was the only one that recognized the approaching danger and the massive mobilization effort necessary to respond effectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577092</id>
	<title>It's all about property rights.</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1262003460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't seen that movie yet, but I heard it's about the "evil corporations" trying to screw the natives, or in this case a planet of blue-faced aliens, out of their natural resources...</p><p>Like most evil in the world, this is an issue of government force, not of <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/technology.html" title="aynrandlexicon.com" rel="nofollow">technology</a> [aynrandlexicon.com] or <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html" title="aynrandlexicon.com" rel="nofollow">capitalism</a> [aynrandlexicon.com]!  The public has no wide-spread delusions about the "divine rights" of corporations to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression\_principle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">initiate aggression</a> [wikipedia.org] against others, they only have this delusion about government!  No one would allow a corporation to control a school their children go to, pledge allegiance to a corporate flag, involuntarily pay taxes to a corporation, allow it to inflate their currency, fight a war for it, etc, etc, etc.  Capitalism doesn't need government, but it does require a universal recognition of <a href="http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf" title="isil.org" rel="nofollow">individual rights</a> [isil.org], including the right to own property - no matter your skin color, and no matter <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=\%22alex+libman\%22+\%22rational+economic+actor\%22" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">what planet you are from</a> [google.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen that movie yet , but I heard it 's about the " evil corporations " trying to screw the natives , or in this case a planet of blue-faced aliens , out of their natural resources...Like most evil in the world , this is an issue of government force , not of technology [ aynrandlexicon.com ] or capitalism [ aynrandlexicon.com ] !
The public has no wide-spread delusions about the " divine rights " of corporations to initiate aggression [ wikipedia.org ] against others , they only have this delusion about government !
No one would allow a corporation to control a school their children go to , pledge allegiance to a corporate flag , involuntarily pay taxes to a corporation , allow it to inflate their currency , fight a war for it , etc , etc , etc .
Capitalism does n't need government , but it does require a universal recognition of individual rights [ isil.org ] , including the right to own property - no matter your skin color , and no matter what planet you are from [ google.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen that movie yet, but I heard it's about the "evil corporations" trying to screw the natives, or in this case a planet of blue-faced aliens, out of their natural resources...Like most evil in the world, this is an issue of government force, not of technology [aynrandlexicon.com] or capitalism [aynrandlexicon.com]!
The public has no wide-spread delusions about the "divine rights" of corporations to initiate aggression [wikipedia.org] against others, they only have this delusion about government!
No one would allow a corporation to control a school their children go to, pledge allegiance to a corporate flag, involuntarily pay taxes to a corporation, allow it to inflate their currency, fight a war for it, etc, etc, etc.
Capitalism doesn't need government, but it does require a universal recognition of individual rights [isil.org], including the right to own property - no matter your skin color, and no matter what planet you are from [google.com]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573792</id>
	<title>Such evolution could exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262028420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In regards to those individuals that trash the ideas of the native connection between two different species in the movie.<br>Actually the idea isnt that far fetched when you take natural selection into account<br>What if the early forms where invasive from the native people.  In other words a forceful connection to a spinal cord etc???<br>Then those individual creatures that where taken over in such a manner would have a evolutionary bump to their survival rate<br>Over time those that could be controlled easier would have better survival odds.  Also by selective breeding the local people could influence this as well</p><p>Other divergent methodologies could exist as well</p><p>the plants could have started the trend.  By being able to communicate with their own kind they could warn their neighbors of impending threat allowing them to react in a more timely fashion.  One plant could warn their neighbor that --"hey I'm on fire" his neighbor could respond by shutting down systems or increasing sap production to patch wounds etc..  Plant eaters might learn to tap into the same network to find ready food and the next step is of course the predators.</p><p>There are numerous possible explanations for such connections if you are willing to consider divergent evolutionary paths then what took place here on earth.</p><p>Are these evolutionary paths probable --not likely but that dose not rule them out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In regards to those individuals that trash the ideas of the native connection between two different species in the movie.Actually the idea isnt that far fetched when you take natural selection into accountWhat if the early forms where invasive from the native people .
In other words a forceful connection to a spinal cord etc ? ?
? Then those individual creatures that where taken over in such a manner would have a evolutionary bump to their survival rateOver time those that could be controlled easier would have better survival odds .
Also by selective breeding the local people could influence this as wellOther divergent methodologies could exist as wellthe plants could have started the trend .
By being able to communicate with their own kind they could warn their neighbors of impending threat allowing them to react in a more timely fashion .
One plant could warn their neighbor that -- " hey I 'm on fire " his neighbor could respond by shutting down systems or increasing sap production to patch wounds etc.. Plant eaters might learn to tap into the same network to find ready food and the next step is of course the predators.There are numerous possible explanations for such connections if you are willing to consider divergent evolutionary paths then what took place here on earth.Are these evolutionary paths probable --not likely but that dose not rule them out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In regards to those individuals that trash the ideas of the native connection between two different species in the movie.Actually the idea isnt that far fetched when you take natural selection into accountWhat if the early forms where invasive from the native people.
In other words a forceful connection to a spinal cord etc??
?Then those individual creatures that where taken over in such a manner would have a evolutionary bump to their survival rateOver time those that could be controlled easier would have better survival odds.
Also by selective breeding the local people could influence this as wellOther divergent methodologies could exist as wellthe plants could have started the trend.
By being able to communicate with their own kind they could warn their neighbors of impending threat allowing them to react in a more timely fashion.
One plant could warn their neighbor that --"hey I'm on fire" his neighbor could respond by shutting down systems or increasing sap production to patch wounds etc..  Plant eaters might learn to tap into the same network to find ready food and the next step is of course the predators.There are numerous possible explanations for such connections if you are willing to consider divergent evolutionary paths then what took place here on earth.Are these evolutionary paths probable --not likely but that dose not rule them out</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578596</id>
	<title>Re:Silly, Infantile Discussion</title>
	<author>Myrimos</author>
	<datestamp>1262015340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since the beginning of time:

* Look, nuclear technology!  Now I can radiate cancer and use PET scans.

* Look, nuclear technology!  Now I can blow cities up...</p></div><p>I believe the first practical use of nuclear technology was, in fact, blowing a city up.
And (somewhat pedantically) trigonometry was used for navigation far before it was used to build or destroy bridges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the beginning of time : * Look , nuclear technology !
Now I can radiate cancer and use PET scans .
* Look , nuclear technology !
Now I can blow cities up...I believe the first practical use of nuclear technology was , in fact , blowing a city up .
And ( somewhat pedantically ) trigonometry was used for navigation far before it was used to build or destroy bridges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the beginning of time:

* Look, nuclear technology!
Now I can radiate cancer and use PET scans.
* Look, nuclear technology!
Now I can blow cities up...I believe the first practical use of nuclear technology was, in fact, blowing a city up.
And (somewhat pedantically) trigonometry was used for navigation far before it was used to build or destroy bridges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572842</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262024100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.</p></div><p>Actually, wolves do exactly that, unless they happen to have the rabies.</p><p>Bears I'll give you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , in the real world packs of wolves and bears do n't just leave you alone.Actually , wolves do exactly that , unless they happen to have the rabies.Bears I 'll give you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.Actually, wolves do exactly that, unless they happen to have the rabies.Bears I'll give you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572002</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262020560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571530</id>
	<title>Re:The Anti-American...</title>
	<author>mjhacker</author>
	<datestamp>1262018280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I didn't see anything Anti-American about it.  It was private military working for a company, not the United States, and therefore was not related to America enough to be anti-American.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I did n't see anything Anti-American about it .
It was private military working for a company , not the United States , and therefore was not related to America enough to be anti-American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I didn't see anything Anti-American about it.
It was private military working for a company, not the United States, and therefore was not related to America enough to be anti-American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572682</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd suggest reading some history. Four countries have had West India Companies; Britain isn't one of them. British colonisation of America, the Caribbean, Africa and pretty much everywhere not India was mostly government-run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd suggest reading some history .
Four countries have had West India Companies ; Britain is n't one of them .
British colonisation of America , the Caribbean , Africa and pretty much everywhere not India was mostly government-run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd suggest reading some history.
Four countries have had West India Companies; Britain isn't one of them.
British colonisation of America, the Caribbean, Africa and pretty much everywhere not India was mostly government-run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574552</id>
	<title>It was a Pocahontas story.</title>
	<author>carpefishus</author>
	<datestamp>1262032140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was a Pocahontas story and she got her hontas poked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a Pocahontas story and she got her hontas poked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a Pocahontas story and she got her hontas poked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574746</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Tyler Durden</author>
	<datestamp>1262033280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From our own history the native populations were responsible for wiping out nearly every large land animal in prehistoric times including driving the Nenaderthals into extinction. The only reason the Indians had any horses to ride in North America was because the Spanish reintroduced them.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The reason large animals were quickly wiped out by man in these areas is that when humans came the animals had not had time to evolve a healthy fear of our ancestors.  See <a href="http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec04/b65lec04.htm" title="uci.edu">here</a> [uci.edu].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From our own history the native populations were responsible for wiping out nearly every large land animal in prehistoric times including driving the Nenaderthals into extinction .
The only reason the Indians had any horses to ride in North America was because the Spanish reintroduced them .
The reason large animals were quickly wiped out by man in these areas is that when humans came the animals had not had time to evolve a healthy fear of our ancestors .
See here [ uci.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From our own history the native populations were responsible for wiping out nearly every large land animal in prehistoric times including driving the Nenaderthals into extinction.
The only reason the Indians had any horses to ride in North America was because the Spanish reintroduced them.
The reason large animals were quickly wiped out by man in these areas is that when humans came the animals had not had time to evolve a healthy fear of our ancestors.
See here [uci.edu].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573606</id>
	<title>Peaceful tribe the exception rather than the rule.</title>
	<author>AmericanGladiator</author>
	<datestamp>1262027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody else said it first, but it deserves repeating: The "Peaceful Tribe" has been much more of an exception in history than a rule.  This and other movies turn that concept into an ideal, where any other type of civilization is somewhat less worthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody else said it first , but it deserves repeating : The " Peaceful Tribe " has been much more of an exception in history than a rule .
This and other movies turn that concept into an ideal , where any other type of civilization is somewhat less worthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody else said it first, but it deserves repeating: The "Peaceful Tribe" has been much more of an exception in history than a rule.
This and other movies turn that concept into an ideal, where any other type of civilization is somewhat less worthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571926</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1262020140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just in, Hollywood romanticizes cultures.
<br> <br>
It doesn't matter if that culture is the Wild West, Roman Legions, or Prehistory, how often do you see someone going to the bathroom in a movie if it's not for comedic effect?
<br> <br>
To dismiss the idea of living sustainably as "White Guilt", or "Noble Savage", or general "Crazy Leftist" propaganda is missing the point of the movie. You don't have to go back to the woods and hunt in a loincloth, you just have to recognize that the our current system of living is not the only system that has worked. It has it disadvantages and just as we shouldn't buy into another system wholesale, we shouldn't dismiss it outright either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in , Hollywood romanticizes cultures .
It does n't matter if that culture is the Wild West , Roman Legions , or Prehistory , how often do you see someone going to the bathroom in a movie if it 's not for comedic effect ?
To dismiss the idea of living sustainably as " White Guilt " , or " Noble Savage " , or general " Crazy Leftist " propaganda is missing the point of the movie .
You do n't have to go back to the woods and hunt in a loincloth , you just have to recognize that the our current system of living is not the only system that has worked .
It has it disadvantages and just as we should n't buy into another system wholesale , we should n't dismiss it outright either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in, Hollywood romanticizes cultures.
It doesn't matter if that culture is the Wild West, Roman Legions, or Prehistory, how often do you see someone going to the bathroom in a movie if it's not for comedic effect?
To dismiss the idea of living sustainably as "White Guilt", or "Noble Savage", or general "Crazy Leftist" propaganda is missing the point of the movie.
You don't have to go back to the woods and hunt in a loincloth, you just have to recognize that the our current system of living is not the only system that has worked.
It has it disadvantages and just as we shouldn't buy into another system wholesale, we shouldn't dismiss it outright either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571554</id>
	<title>re: Sure, but he's got the megaphone ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1262018340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no different than advertisers spending gobs of money to hire celebrities as spokespeople for their products.  Do you really think some football player is the "authority figure" for determining that a new Ford truck is the best value for your dollar, or that some ex baseball player is an expert on spray paint, or??</p><p>The thing is, it's people like Hollywood movie makers, rock stars and sports figures who have access to the media mouthpiece.  When they want to deliver a message, they've got the ability to get it delivered to a large audience easily.  Many of the people who *really* have deep knowledge of subject DON'T have access to (or even an interest in) broadcasting their opinions and insights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no different than advertisers spending gobs of money to hire celebrities as spokespeople for their products .
Do you really think some football player is the " authority figure " for determining that a new Ford truck is the best value for your dollar , or that some ex baseball player is an expert on spray paint , or ?
? The thing is , it 's people like Hollywood movie makers , rock stars and sports figures who have access to the media mouthpiece .
When they want to deliver a message , they 've got the ability to get it delivered to a large audience easily .
Many of the people who * really * have deep knowledge of subject DO N'T have access to ( or even an interest in ) broadcasting their opinions and insights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no different than advertisers spending gobs of money to hire celebrities as spokespeople for their products.
Do you really think some football player is the "authority figure" for determining that a new Ford truck is the best value for your dollar, or that some ex baseball player is an expert on spray paint, or?
?The thing is, it's people like Hollywood movie makers, rock stars and sports figures who have access to the media mouthpiece.
When they want to deliver a message, they've got the ability to get it delivered to a large audience easily.
Many of the people who *really* have deep knowledge of subject DON'T have access to (or even an interest in) broadcasting their opinions and insights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573868</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1262028840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery.</i></p><p><i>So if the technology haves want to slum it with the have-nots, it shouldn't be any big surprise that they embrace an ideology that makes themselves the criminal and thus flagellating themselves thereby redeeming themselves.</i></p><p>But for it to be SELF-flagellation, they must therefore associate themselves with the ones being flagellated, the ones portrayed as criminals.  That's funny because I sure don't see myself in the antagonists in the movie.  Why should I?  Because they're mostly white?  The ones who are redeemed are not the criminals in the first place.  I associate with them, not the ones ho put greed above human life.</p><p>That you associate the portrayal of, say, the genocide of an indigenous people for the sake of greed as a <b>bad thing</b> with "white guilt" is quite telling, I think.  I suppose you don't think the humans remaining on Pandora should do anything to help the Navi recover from the damage wrought by <i>other humans, because doing so would just be more examples of self-flagellation over something they didn't do.</i></p><p><i>You must really hate <i>Dances With Wolves</i>.  After all, the atrocity portrayed there really happened, and there's no way anyone could point that out without trying to make you, personally, feel responsible.  So therefore we must not pass any value judgment at all, while also avoiding the evil of non-judgmental multiculturalism.  Cus that's not dissonant.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery.So if the technology haves want to slum it with the have-nots , it should n't be any big surprise that they embrace an ideology that makes themselves the criminal and thus flagellating themselves thereby redeeming themselves.But for it to be SELF-flagellation , they must therefore associate themselves with the ones being flagellated , the ones portrayed as criminals .
That 's funny because I sure do n't see myself in the antagonists in the movie .
Why should I ?
Because they 're mostly white ?
The ones who are redeemed are not the criminals in the first place .
I associate with them , not the ones ho put greed above human life.That you associate the portrayal of , say , the genocide of an indigenous people for the sake of greed as a bad thing with " white guilt " is quite telling , I think .
I suppose you do n't think the humans remaining on Pandora should do anything to help the Navi recover from the damage wrought by other humans , because doing so would just be more examples of self-flagellation over something they did n't do.You must really hate Dances With Wolves .
After all , the atrocity portrayed there really happened , and there 's no way anyone could point that out without trying to make you , personally , feel responsible .
So therefore we must not pass any value judgment at all , while also avoiding the evil of non-judgmental multiculturalism .
Cus that 's not dissonant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery.So if the technology haves want to slum it with the have-nots, it shouldn't be any big surprise that they embrace an ideology that makes themselves the criminal and thus flagellating themselves thereby redeeming themselves.But for it to be SELF-flagellation, they must therefore associate themselves with the ones being flagellated, the ones portrayed as criminals.
That's funny because I sure don't see myself in the antagonists in the movie.
Why should I?
Because they're mostly white?
The ones who are redeemed are not the criminals in the first place.
I associate with them, not the ones ho put greed above human life.That you associate the portrayal of, say, the genocide of an indigenous people for the sake of greed as a bad thing with "white guilt" is quite telling, I think.
I suppose you don't think the humans remaining on Pandora should do anything to help the Navi recover from the damage wrought by other humans, because doing so would just be more examples of self-flagellation over something they didn't do.You must really hate Dances With Wolves.
After all, the atrocity portrayed there really happened, and there's no way anyone could point that out without trying to make you, personally, feel responsible.
So therefore we must not pass any value judgment at all, while also avoiding the evil of non-judgmental multiculturalism.
Cus that's not dissonant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589856</id>
	<title>Historical movies?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262100120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't dislike historical movies. I saw about half of 300, but wasn't particularly impressed with it. "</p><p>Of all the movies that could be considered "historical" you chose 300?</p><p>Are you serious?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't dislike historical movies .
I saw about half of 300 , but was n't particularly impressed with it .
" Of all the movies that could be considered " historical " you chose 300 ? Are you serious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't dislike historical movies.
I saw about half of 300, but wasn't particularly impressed with it.
"Of all the movies that could be considered "historical" you chose 300?Are you serious?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572692</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a quarter, go buy a clue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only statement I got from the film is that movie producers gave up on interesting stories and innovation long ago. The whole movie is a statement that says: screw originality and story, let's just copy as much as we can and make it shiny.</p><p>Kind of ironic that the industry, that lobbies so much for copyrights and restrictions, is the single most cultural plagiarist ever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only statement I got from the film is that movie producers gave up on interesting stories and innovation long ago .
The whole movie is a statement that says : screw originality and story , let 's just copy as much as we can and make it shiny.Kind of ironic that the industry , that lobbies so much for copyrights and restrictions , is the single most cultural plagiarist ever : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only statement I got from the film is that movie producers gave up on interesting stories and innovation long ago.
The whole movie is a statement that says: screw originality and story, let's just copy as much as we can and make it shiny.Kind of ironic that the industry, that lobbies so much for copyrights and restrictions, is the single most cultural plagiarist ever :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575740</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261995240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572174</id>
	<title>Re:The Anti-American...</title>
	<author>mythandros</author>
	<datestamp>1262021460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anti-American?  Wh...what?  This movie was a criticism of greed in the form of unchecked capitalism.  This movie was a criticism of warmongering.  I don't know about you but the USA that I live in has an identity outside of those things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-American ?
Wh...what ? This movie was a criticism of greed in the form of unchecked capitalism .
This movie was a criticism of warmongering .
I do n't know about you but the USA that I live in has an identity outside of those things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-American?
Wh...what?  This movie was a criticism of greed in the form of unchecked capitalism.
This movie was a criticism of warmongering.
I don't know about you but the USA that I live in has an identity outside of those things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574496</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262031840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I don't think it is a fair comparison because we're not stealing oil in Iraq.</i> No, what we're doing is even worse -- our tax dollars are being spent to kill people to assure huge corporations access to oil; in effect subsidizing the oil companies and diverting public funds into private hands. I'd far prefer that if the oil companies want to invade other countries to get access to "cheap" oil, they do it with their own private armies, not the military I'm paying to protect our country. If the oil companies had to pay ALL the costs of protecting their access to oil, perhaps it would change their costs/benefits analysis... and after all, that is all they really understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it is a fair comparison because we 're not stealing oil in Iraq .
No , what we 're doing is even worse -- our tax dollars are being spent to kill people to assure huge corporations access to oil ; in effect subsidizing the oil companies and diverting public funds into private hands .
I 'd far prefer that if the oil companies want to invade other countries to get access to " cheap " oil , they do it with their own private armies , not the military I 'm paying to protect our country .
If the oil companies had to pay ALL the costs of protecting their access to oil , perhaps it would change their costs/benefits analysis... and after all , that is all they really understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it is a fair comparison because we're not stealing oil in Iraq.
No, what we're doing is even worse -- our tax dollars are being spent to kill people to assure huge corporations access to oil; in effect subsidizing the oil companies and diverting public funds into private hands.
I'd far prefer that if the oil companies want to invade other countries to get access to "cheap" oil, they do it with their own private armies, not the military I'm paying to protect our country.
If the oil companies had to pay ALL the costs of protecting their access to oil, perhaps it would change their costs/benefits analysis... and after all, that is all they really understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575358</id>
	<title>Re:Not anti-tech. Just a Power Dream.</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1261993140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, all the idiots who blatantly blundered this particular intervention and unnecessarily fled back to Earth will get fired, at least.  But eventual corporate victory is assured, since the next mission will have people who are aware of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic\_bombardment" title="wikipedia.org">Project Thor</a> [wikipedia.org] and how it can wipe out the Na'Vi with no defense or counterattack possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , all the idiots who blatantly blundered this particular intervention and unnecessarily fled back to Earth will get fired , at least .
But eventual corporate victory is assured , since the next mission will have people who are aware of Project Thor [ wikipedia.org ] and how it can wipe out the Na'Vi with no defense or counterattack possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, all the idiots who blatantly blundered this particular intervention and unnecessarily fled back to Earth will get fired, at least.
But eventual corporate victory is assured, since the next mission will have people who are aware of Project Thor [wikipedia.org] and how it can wipe out the Na'Vi with no defense or counterattack possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574986</id>
	<title>Arrows beat armor - Lame!</title>
	<author>GalubJamun</author>
	<datestamp>1261991340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I loved the special effects and the 3D, the first 50\% of the movie was excellent.  When I see aliens shoot arrows (no matter how large!) through the armored cockpit of a attack helicopter I think stupid which is what the combat scenes in this movie were.  Only in the movies would something this silly make sense.  What a waste to spend $300M, create fantastic new movie technology, and use this worthless story as the plot.  For crying out loud, they could have driven the bulldozer into the center!  Oh wait a minute, the bulldozer was disabled when 8 cameras were smashed.  Talk about stupid.

Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved the special effects and the 3D , the first 50 \ % of the movie was excellent .
When I see aliens shoot arrows ( no matter how large !
) through the armored cockpit of a attack helicopter I think stupid which is what the combat scenes in this movie were .
Only in the movies would something this silly make sense .
What a waste to spend $ 300M , create fantastic new movie technology , and use this worthless story as the plot .
For crying out loud , they could have driven the bulldozer into the center !
Oh wait a minute , the bulldozer was disabled when 8 cameras were smashed .
Talk about stupid .
Nuke them from orbit , it 's the only way to be sure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved the special effects and the 3D, the first 50\% of the movie was excellent.
When I see aliens shoot arrows (no matter how large!
) through the armored cockpit of a attack helicopter I think stupid which is what the combat scenes in this movie were.
Only in the movies would something this silly make sense.
What a waste to spend $300M, create fantastic new movie technology, and use this worthless story as the plot.
For crying out loud, they could have driven the bulldozer into the center!
Oh wait a minute, the bulldozer was disabled when 8 cameras were smashed.
Talk about stupid.
Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571380</id>
	<title>I was rooting for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262017380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>...the blue people ever since they revealed what they were doing with the natives.
<br>
<br>The takeover of the Native Americans, and the slavery of Africans, were the two most savage acts the United States every did.  There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed.  I wouldn't be surprised after they went home there was some type of investigation and charges filed against the CEO and other people within the company for genocide.  This is why we need to remember out past, or we will be doomed to repeat it.
<br>
<br>A long time ago when we justified the hostile takeover of Native Americans, we considered them as "savages."  Guess who the real savages were?
<br>
<br>Like the posters before me have said, this isn't a statement on anti-technology, but how technology needs to be responsibly used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the blue people ever since they revealed what they were doing with the natives .
The takeover of the Native Americans , and the slavery of Africans , were the two most savage acts the United States every did .
There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed .
I would n't be surprised after they went home there was some type of investigation and charges filed against the CEO and other people within the company for genocide .
This is why we need to remember out past , or we will be doomed to repeat it .
A long time ago when we justified the hostile takeover of Native Americans , we considered them as " savages .
" Guess who the real savages were ?
Like the posters before me have said , this is n't a statement on anti-technology , but how technology needs to be responsibly used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the blue people ever since they revealed what they were doing with the natives.
The takeover of the Native Americans, and the slavery of Africans, were the two most savage acts the United States every did.
There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed.
I wouldn't be surprised after they went home there was some type of investigation and charges filed against the CEO and other people within the company for genocide.
This is why we need to remember out past, or we will be doomed to repeat it.
A long time ago when we justified the hostile takeover of Native Americans, we considered them as "savages.
"  Guess who the real savages were?
Like the posters before me have said, this isn't a statement on anti-technology, but how technology needs to be responsibly used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576424</id>
	<title>The stories...they are not the same</title>
	<author>tinker\_taylor</author>
	<datestamp>1261998660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one of the most profound discoveries I made in course of studying philosophy was the concept of Categorical Frameworks. A categorical framework is that which provides a primer for translating subjective experience into objective syntax. In other words, everything that we use to communicate in this world depends on a categorical framework.</p><p>The next more profound thing to be realized is that this categorical framework is not shared across the globe (or across various species). As a result, any one culture or civilization's world-view and philosophy will be significantly different from that of another. For eg the Categorical Framework of the Native Americans was vastly different from that of the European Settlers. The fact that the Europeans won doesn't automatically mean that their framework was better or more accurate than that of the Natives'.</p><p>This is the basis of the movie Avatar, and if you apply the concept of Categorical Frameworks to the story, you will see that what it's trying to do is emphasize that it is not a good idea to force one's ideas (Categorical Framework) down another's throat. And in intercultural interactions, sensitivity to the fact that there IS NO Universal common ground is very important.</p><p>We can learn from this in our interactions with the rest of the world (including the natural world) and then perhaps we will have a more respectful attitude towards those that seem different from us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one of the most profound discoveries I made in course of studying philosophy was the concept of Categorical Frameworks .
A categorical framework is that which provides a primer for translating subjective experience into objective syntax .
In other words , everything that we use to communicate in this world depends on a categorical framework.The next more profound thing to be realized is that this categorical framework is not shared across the globe ( or across various species ) .
As a result , any one culture or civilization 's world-view and philosophy will be significantly different from that of another .
For eg the Categorical Framework of the Native Americans was vastly different from that of the European Settlers .
The fact that the Europeans won does n't automatically mean that their framework was better or more accurate than that of the Natives'.This is the basis of the movie Avatar , and if you apply the concept of Categorical Frameworks to the story , you will see that what it 's trying to do is emphasize that it is not a good idea to force one 's ideas ( Categorical Framework ) down another 's throat .
And in intercultural interactions , sensitivity to the fact that there IS NO Universal common ground is very important.We can learn from this in our interactions with the rest of the world ( including the natural world ) and then perhaps we will have a more respectful attitude towards those that seem different from us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one of the most profound discoveries I made in course of studying philosophy was the concept of Categorical Frameworks.
A categorical framework is that which provides a primer for translating subjective experience into objective syntax.
In other words, everything that we use to communicate in this world depends on a categorical framework.The next more profound thing to be realized is that this categorical framework is not shared across the globe (or across various species).
As a result, any one culture or civilization's world-view and philosophy will be significantly different from that of another.
For eg the Categorical Framework of the Native Americans was vastly different from that of the European Settlers.
The fact that the Europeans won doesn't automatically mean that their framework was better or more accurate than that of the Natives'.This is the basis of the movie Avatar, and if you apply the concept of Categorical Frameworks to the story, you will see that what it's trying to do is emphasize that it is not a good idea to force one's ideas (Categorical Framework) down another's throat.
And in intercultural interactions, sensitivity to the fact that there IS NO Universal common ground is very important.We can learn from this in our interactions with the rest of the world (including the natural world) and then perhaps we will have a more respectful attitude towards those that seem different from us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571678</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's not forget that there are other reasons than 'white guilt' that people might feel this way, though.  I certainly don't feel bad about what other peoples' ancestors did (my family hasn't been here that long) but I still do feel bad about anyone else's ancestors getting a bad shake.  Heck, that applies to people who get a back shake today, too.</p><p>As for promoting 'multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures', that just seems to be common sense to me.  Why limit yourself to 1 culture's offerings when you can enjoy many?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not forget that there are other reasons than 'white guilt ' that people might feel this way , though .
I certainly do n't feel bad about what other peoples ' ancestors did ( my family has n't been here that long ) but I still do feel bad about anyone else 's ancestors getting a bad shake .
Heck , that applies to people who get a back shake today , too.As for promoting 'multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures ' , that just seems to be common sense to me .
Why limit yourself to 1 culture 's offerings when you can enjoy many ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not forget that there are other reasons than 'white guilt' that people might feel this way, though.
I certainly don't feel bad about what other peoples' ancestors did (my family hasn't been here that long) but I still do feel bad about anyone else's ancestors getting a bad shake.
Heck, that applies to people who get a back shake today, too.As for promoting 'multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures', that just seems to be common sense to me.
Why limit yourself to 1 culture's offerings when you can enjoy many?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572736</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>jjtiziou</author>
	<datestamp>1262023680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's another interesting aspect to this that can tie into a discussion on race/power... </p><p>Right before the avatar hero fellow goes off to tame the big dragon thing, he says "I need them.... and <i>they need me!</i>*"</p><p>It's interesting to stop and ask why they in fact need him at all. There's an assumption that the indigenous population can't fend for themselves, and need to be "saved" by one of the outsiders (who, incidentally, happens to be a white male, like myself) - Couldn't the girl have gone and tamed the beast and assembled the clans and led the resistance herself, while the avatar fellow served just as the communication link between the two cultures? That could have made for a very different message, while being an equally compelling movie.</p><p>Try flipping the roles around in any movie where the sophisticated aliens are attacking humans, like say Independence Day... Does "our side" need a powerful alien figure to break ranks with the oppressors to lead our resistance? No, the general myth is that a "hero" rises from within to lead the struggle... so one could argue that the view presented in this movie is that the "native" people need to be guided by an outsider who knows what's best for them. (This is an assumption that I think many people in power make fairly often, but many of the people that they affect might take issue with it)</p><p>I saw this movie with my little cousins, and asked them if this story was imaginary or had any elements of truth.<br>
They thought that it was all fake, imagined. Then I showed them this picture and asked them if it looked familiar: <a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/the\_decade\_in\_news\_photographs.html#photo38" title="boston.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/the\_decade\_in\_news\_photographs.html#photo38</a> [boston.com] </p><p>If you scroll around a bit through that gallery, you'll see plenty more war and carnage, but then check out picture #24 to see what most people have been paying attention instead. The bigger problem isn't as much with the environment as it is with the media... If we had better media that prioritized things that were actually important (with not just stories of atrocity but also examples of positively engaged communities) then it would be much easier to go on and solve environmental and social problems... </p><p>just a thought-
-jj</p><p>

* I might not have this quote exactly right, as I just saw this movie overdubbed in French last night- but that's how they translated it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's another interesting aspect to this that can tie into a discussion on race/power... Right before the avatar hero fellow goes off to tame the big dragon thing , he says " I need them.... and they need me !
* " It 's interesting to stop and ask why they in fact need him at all .
There 's an assumption that the indigenous population ca n't fend for themselves , and need to be " saved " by one of the outsiders ( who , incidentally , happens to be a white male , like myself ) - Could n't the girl have gone and tamed the beast and assembled the clans and led the resistance herself , while the avatar fellow served just as the communication link between the two cultures ?
That could have made for a very different message , while being an equally compelling movie.Try flipping the roles around in any movie where the sophisticated aliens are attacking humans , like say Independence Day... Does " our side " need a powerful alien figure to break ranks with the oppressors to lead our resistance ?
No , the general myth is that a " hero " rises from within to lead the struggle... so one could argue that the view presented in this movie is that the " native " people need to be guided by an outsider who knows what 's best for them .
( This is an assumption that I think many people in power make fairly often , but many of the people that they affect might take issue with it ) I saw this movie with my little cousins , and asked them if this story was imaginary or had any elements of truth .
They thought that it was all fake , imagined .
Then I showed them this picture and asked them if it looked familiar : http : //www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/the \ _decade \ _in \ _news \ _photographs.html # photo38 [ boston.com ] If you scroll around a bit through that gallery , you 'll see plenty more war and carnage , but then check out picture # 24 to see what most people have been paying attention instead .
The bigger problem is n't as much with the environment as it is with the media... If we had better media that prioritized things that were actually important ( with not just stories of atrocity but also examples of positively engaged communities ) then it would be much easier to go on and solve environmental and social problems... just a thought- -jj * I might not have this quote exactly right , as I just saw this movie overdubbed in French last night- but that 's how they translated it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's another interesting aspect to this that can tie into a discussion on race/power... Right before the avatar hero fellow goes off to tame the big dragon thing, he says "I need them.... and they need me!
*"It's interesting to stop and ask why they in fact need him at all.
There's an assumption that the indigenous population can't fend for themselves, and need to be "saved" by one of the outsiders (who, incidentally, happens to be a white male, like myself) - Couldn't the girl have gone and tamed the beast and assembled the clans and led the resistance herself, while the avatar fellow served just as the communication link between the two cultures?
That could have made for a very different message, while being an equally compelling movie.Try flipping the roles around in any movie where the sophisticated aliens are attacking humans, like say Independence Day... Does "our side" need a powerful alien figure to break ranks with the oppressors to lead our resistance?
No, the general myth is that a "hero" rises from within to lead the struggle... so one could argue that the view presented in this movie is that the "native" people need to be guided by an outsider who knows what's best for them.
(This is an assumption that I think many people in power make fairly often, but many of the people that they affect might take issue with it)I saw this movie with my little cousins, and asked them if this story was imaginary or had any elements of truth.
They thought that it was all fake, imagined.
Then I showed them this picture and asked them if it looked familiar: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/the\_decade\_in\_news\_photographs.html#photo38 [boston.com] If you scroll around a bit through that gallery, you'll see plenty more war and carnage, but then check out picture #24 to see what most people have been paying attention instead.
The bigger problem isn't as much with the environment as it is with the media... If we had better media that prioritized things that were actually important (with not just stories of atrocity but also examples of positively engaged communities) then it would be much easier to go on and solve environmental and social problems... just a thought-
-jj

* I might not have this quote exactly right, as I just saw this movie overdubbed in French last night- but that's how they translated it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570882</id>
	<title>Is just a movie...</title>
	<author>ghostdancer</author>
	<datestamp>1262014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe a movie that portrait a future where science and technology have become a tool to satisfy human greed, but I don't really think is about anti-technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe a movie that portrait a future where science and technology have become a tool to satisfy human greed , but I do n't really think is about anti-technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe a movie that portrait a future where science and technology have become a tool to satisfy human greed, but I don't really think is about anti-technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>jeti</author>
	<datestamp>1262018940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A friend who actually lived for two years with a south american tribe claimed that crippled babies were drowned as quickly as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend who actually lived for two years with a south american tribe claimed that crippled babies were drowned as quickly as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend who actually lived for two years with a south american tribe claimed that crippled babies were drowned as quickly as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577554</id>
	<title>Yes, They are against life!</title>
	<author>kentsin</author>
	<datestamp>1262007240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy\_report/cpr-20n1-1.html</p><p>Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?</p><p>by Robert Nozick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cato.org/pubs/policy \ _report/cpr-20n1-1.htmlWhy Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism ? by Robert Nozick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy\_report/cpr-20n1-1.htmlWhy Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?by Robert Nozick</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574316</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>injustus</author>
	<datestamp>1262031000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As someone noted above, the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental, however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British (I've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not).</p></div><p>From living at an Iberic ex-colony in South America, I can assure you that regular military is as greedy and corrupt as any private one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone noted above , the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental , however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British ( I 've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not ) .From living at an Iberic ex-colony in South America , I can assure you that regular military is as greedy and corrupt as any private one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone noted above, the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental, however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British (I've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not).From living at an Iberic ex-colony in South America, I can assure you that regular military is as greedy and corrupt as any private one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573274</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh, I didn't know BadAnalogyGuy was a white supremacist...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh , I did n't know BadAnalogyGuy was a white supremacist.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh, I didn't know BadAnalogyGuy was a white supremacist...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572376</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>earthforce\_1</author>
	<datestamp>1262022300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas meets Starship Troopers with a bit of The Matrix thrown in...</p><p>Actually, the worst part of a small tribal society like that is they often devolve into petty dictatorships, where one bullying leader and his band of henchmen seize power and turn the little bit of heaven into hell for everybody else.</p><p>Look at what happened with the mayor of Pitcarn Island a few years back.</p><p>That the world described in Avatar was very unlike ours - Everything was to some degree networked into the brain matrix, so Earth's rules of competition did not apply.</p><p>They certainly took more than a few liberties with some fundamental lines of physics, and I had to laugh when I saw how many times the Navi were incorrectly drawing a bow.  I'm no expert, but I do know the correct technique.</p><p>That being said, an awesome spectacle that sets a new FX benchmark - when you see it you will feel this is the reason you bought a large screen HDTV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas meets Starship Troopers with a bit of The Matrix thrown in...Actually , the worst part of a small tribal society like that is they often devolve into petty dictatorships , where one bullying leader and his band of henchmen seize power and turn the little bit of heaven into hell for everybody else.Look at what happened with the mayor of Pitcarn Island a few years back.That the world described in Avatar was very unlike ours - Everything was to some degree networked into the brain matrix , so Earth 's rules of competition did not apply.They certainly took more than a few liberties with some fundamental lines of physics , and I had to laugh when I saw how many times the Navi were incorrectly drawing a bow .
I 'm no expert , but I do know the correct technique.That being said , an awesome spectacle that sets a new FX benchmark - when you see it you will feel this is the reason you bought a large screen HDTV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas meets Starship Troopers with a bit of The Matrix thrown in...Actually, the worst part of a small tribal society like that is they often devolve into petty dictatorships, where one bullying leader and his band of henchmen seize power and turn the little bit of heaven into hell for everybody else.Look at what happened with the mayor of Pitcarn Island a few years back.That the world described in Avatar was very unlike ours - Everything was to some degree networked into the brain matrix, so Earth's rules of competition did not apply.They certainly took more than a few liberties with some fundamental lines of physics, and I had to laugh when I saw how many times the Navi were incorrectly drawing a bow.
I'm no expert, but I do know the correct technique.That being said, an awesome spectacle that sets a new FX benchmark - when you see it you will feel this is the reason you bought a large screen HDTV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572284</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1262021940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the US</p></div></blockquote><p>That was obvious before it even happened, but it was a huge cash cow for many of the contractors.  I suspect we'll get a very interesting story about why it happened in a few years after some deathbed confessions.  None of the reasons made any sense at all in the national interest and some were embarrassingly blatant lies.<br>The sad thing is the idiots that did absolutely everything wrong to start with (eg. Rumsfeld) will take the credit of those that came in to clean up the mess afterwards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the USThat was obvious before it even happened , but it was a huge cash cow for many of the contractors .
I suspect we 'll get a very interesting story about why it happened in a few years after some deathbed confessions .
None of the reasons made any sense at all in the national interest and some were embarrassingly blatant lies.The sad thing is the idiots that did absolutely everything wrong to start with ( eg .
Rumsfeld ) will take the credit of those that came in to clean up the mess afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the USThat was obvious before it even happened, but it was a huge cash cow for many of the contractors.
I suspect we'll get a very interesting story about why it happened in a few years after some deathbed confessions.
None of the reasons made any sense at all in the national interest and some were embarrassingly blatant lies.The sad thing is the idiots that did absolutely everything wrong to start with (eg.
Rumsfeld) will take the credit of those that came in to clean up the mess afterwards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573340</id>
	<title>My opinion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...mushrooms!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...mushrooms !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...mushrooms!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30582916</id>
	<title>Re:Assuming Facts Not In Evidence</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1262107560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem with the movie was its straw-man approach.  Clearly there could have been better compromises reached than the solution that was attempted in the movie.  Mining occurs under settled areas on earth all the time - you just need to dig shafts and if the ore is that valuable it would easily be profitable.  Just communicate to the natives that the intent is peaceful, and offer to compensate them if they're willing to accept compensation.  If you still suffer attacks then fight them off in the least invasive way possible without endangering your own workers.</p><p>I also can't say I approved of the native's complete unwillingness to even talk with the miners.  If they want to have an attitude that nobody not born on the planet is worth talking to or trading with, then they're just going to have to live with the consequences.  In a more realistic situation you'd probably end up with factions of natives that side with the miners and fight wars amongst each other (which certainly has happened historically with native tribes on Earth).</p><p>A lot of people seem to be invoking property rights (the ore belongs to them - they have the right to just sit on it even if it is used to make medical equipment that will save the lives of millions, or whatever).  However, property rights are adjudicated by governments.  The local government was whoever colonized the planet, because they effectively held sovereignty over it.  If you don't want foreign governments running the show then you should reconsider your decision to not fund a competitive military.  The ethics governing governments aren't always the same as those governing individuals.  The colonizing power should of course try to safeguard the rights of the natives as best as it can, but that doesn't mean tolerating armed revolts.</p><p>Also, there is no way that a culture like the one in the movie would be able to resist an attack indefinitely (even with the help of wild animals).  Since the whole planet was toxic anyway, if they REALLY needed the ore that much they'd just nerve gas the entire area.  They'd also not do their bombing runs at 25mph and 100 feet of altitude.</p><p>Even so, the effects were very well done, and I think the movie is worth seeing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem with the movie was its straw-man approach .
Clearly there could have been better compromises reached than the solution that was attempted in the movie .
Mining occurs under settled areas on earth all the time - you just need to dig shafts and if the ore is that valuable it would easily be profitable .
Just communicate to the natives that the intent is peaceful , and offer to compensate them if they 're willing to accept compensation .
If you still suffer attacks then fight them off in the least invasive way possible without endangering your own workers.I also ca n't say I approved of the native 's complete unwillingness to even talk with the miners .
If they want to have an attitude that nobody not born on the planet is worth talking to or trading with , then they 're just going to have to live with the consequences .
In a more realistic situation you 'd probably end up with factions of natives that side with the miners and fight wars amongst each other ( which certainly has happened historically with native tribes on Earth ) .A lot of people seem to be invoking property rights ( the ore belongs to them - they have the right to just sit on it even if it is used to make medical equipment that will save the lives of millions , or whatever ) .
However , property rights are adjudicated by governments .
The local government was whoever colonized the planet , because they effectively held sovereignty over it .
If you do n't want foreign governments running the show then you should reconsider your decision to not fund a competitive military .
The ethics governing governments are n't always the same as those governing individuals .
The colonizing power should of course try to safeguard the rights of the natives as best as it can , but that does n't mean tolerating armed revolts.Also , there is no way that a culture like the one in the movie would be able to resist an attack indefinitely ( even with the help of wild animals ) .
Since the whole planet was toxic anyway , if they REALLY needed the ore that much they 'd just nerve gas the entire area .
They 'd also not do their bombing runs at 25mph and 100 feet of altitude.Even so , the effects were very well done , and I think the movie is worth seeing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem with the movie was its straw-man approach.
Clearly there could have been better compromises reached than the solution that was attempted in the movie.
Mining occurs under settled areas on earth all the time - you just need to dig shafts and if the ore is that valuable it would easily be profitable.
Just communicate to the natives that the intent is peaceful, and offer to compensate them if they're willing to accept compensation.
If you still suffer attacks then fight them off in the least invasive way possible without endangering your own workers.I also can't say I approved of the native's complete unwillingness to even talk with the miners.
If they want to have an attitude that nobody not born on the planet is worth talking to or trading with, then they're just going to have to live with the consequences.
In a more realistic situation you'd probably end up with factions of natives that side with the miners and fight wars amongst each other (which certainly has happened historically with native tribes on Earth).A lot of people seem to be invoking property rights (the ore belongs to them - they have the right to just sit on it even if it is used to make medical equipment that will save the lives of millions, or whatever).
However, property rights are adjudicated by governments.
The local government was whoever colonized the planet, because they effectively held sovereignty over it.
If you don't want foreign governments running the show then you should reconsider your decision to not fund a competitive military.
The ethics governing governments aren't always the same as those governing individuals.
The colonizing power should of course try to safeguard the rights of the natives as best as it can, but that doesn't mean tolerating armed revolts.Also, there is no way that a culture like the one in the movie would be able to resist an attack indefinitely (even with the help of wild animals).
Since the whole planet was toxic anyway, if they REALLY needed the ore that much they'd just nerve gas the entire area.
They'd also not do their bombing runs at 25mph and 100 feet of altitude.Even so, the effects were very well done, and I think the movie is worth seeing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589888</id>
	<title>We live healtier and longer lives...</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262100420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of us are no longer burdened by inhumane jobs.</p><p>We no longer have to walk for hours in order to trade.</p><p>We no longer die due to treatable diseases (we as in "we living in rich countries, aren't we lucky bastards?").</p><p>I frankly fail to see how technology has made our live more difficult.</p><p>Complex perhaps, but difficult? Nope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of us are no longer burdened by inhumane jobs.We no longer have to walk for hours in order to trade.We no longer die due to treatable diseases ( we as in " we living in rich countries , are n't we lucky bastards ?
" ) .I frankly fail to see how technology has made our live more difficult.Complex perhaps , but difficult ?
Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of us are no longer burdened by inhumane jobs.We no longer have to walk for hours in order to trade.We no longer die due to treatable diseases (we as in "we living in rich countries, aren't we lucky bastards?
").I frankly fail to see how technology has made our live more difficult.Complex perhaps, but difficult?
Nope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573580</id>
	<title>Re:I got something different from that movie.</title>
	<author>worldsayshi</author>
	<datestamp>1262027460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might have made an interesting plot if the Navi's actually had engineered the grid themselves, or at least understood it on a more profound level, but the movie seems to suggest that something else made it, evolution probably. I personally find the suggestion on evolution having created it most interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might have made an interesting plot if the Navi 's actually had engineered the grid themselves , or at least understood it on a more profound level , but the movie seems to suggest that something else made it , evolution probably .
I personally find the suggestion on evolution having created it most interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might have made an interesting plot if the Navi's actually had engineered the grid themselves, or at least understood it on a more profound level, but the movie seems to suggest that something else made it, evolution probably.
I personally find the suggestion on evolution having created it most interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571766</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1262019360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.agentsmith.com/memento/o/outside+context+problem.html" title="agentsmith.com">http://www.agentsmith.com/memento/o/outside+context+problem.html</a> [agentsmith.com]</p><p>"An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop. The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish, fertile island; you'd tamed the land, invented the wheel or writing or whatever, the neighbours were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had, you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass... when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you've just been discovered, you're all subjects of the Emperor now, he's keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests." -- Iain Banks, Excession</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.agentsmith.com/memento/o/outside + context + problem.html [ agentsmith.com ] " An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once , and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop .
The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish , fertile island ; you 'd tamed the land , invented the wheel or writing or whatever , the neighbours were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had , you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass... when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you 've just been discovered , you 're all subjects of the Emperor now , he 's keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests .
" -- Iain Banks , Excession</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.agentsmith.com/memento/o/outside+context+problem.html [agentsmith.com]"An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop.
The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish, fertile island; you'd tamed the land, invented the wheel or writing or whatever, the neighbours were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had, you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass... when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you've just been discovered, you're all subjects of the Emperor now, he's keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests.
" -- Iain Banks, Excession</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572678</id>
	<title>Guilt and Redemption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guilt have nothing to do with spiritual salvation, although its a useful tool to manipulate people to do what you want them to do!</p><p>Am not sure I grasped everything in your post.<br>Though, I would rather think of it as a pendulum. Often it swings from one extreme to the other:<br>From open and violent racism, to self-deprecation and anti-racism.<br>It is quite natural that when the heavy pendulum swings, it swings like this until we slow down.</p><p>Our children, or children's children, will after some time not ever bother about "racism". It will be unthinkable that someone with a different "colour" should have lesser rights in society.<br>However, the uneducated, or sheltered/lagging societies, may still do the same mistakes - discriminating on religion, skin colour and other superficial features.<br>So although our soceity learns alot from this globalisation, we may still do similar mistakes, ignoring previous learnings or forgetting to apply it universally.</p><p>Redemption should strictly be to fix the broken laws so that they are at equilibrum, halting this pendulum, not let it swing too much.<br>In fact, how much we manage to slow down the pendumul, is a sign of spiritual / humanistic maturity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guilt have nothing to do with spiritual salvation , although its a useful tool to manipulate people to do what you want them to do ! Am not sure I grasped everything in your post.Though , I would rather think of it as a pendulum .
Often it swings from one extreme to the other : From open and violent racism , to self-deprecation and anti-racism.It is quite natural that when the heavy pendulum swings , it swings like this until we slow down.Our children , or children 's children , will after some time not ever bother about " racism " .
It will be unthinkable that someone with a different " colour " should have lesser rights in society.However , the uneducated , or sheltered/lagging societies , may still do the same mistakes - discriminating on religion , skin colour and other superficial features.So although our soceity learns alot from this globalisation , we may still do similar mistakes , ignoring previous learnings or forgetting to apply it universally.Redemption should strictly be to fix the broken laws so that they are at equilibrum , halting this pendulum , not let it swing too much.In fact , how much we manage to slow down the pendumul , is a sign of spiritual / humanistic maturity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guilt have nothing to do with spiritual salvation, although its a useful tool to manipulate people to do what you want them to do!Am not sure I grasped everything in your post.Though, I would rather think of it as a pendulum.
Often it swings from one extreme to the other:From open and violent racism, to self-deprecation and anti-racism.It is quite natural that when the heavy pendulum swings, it swings like this until we slow down.Our children, or children's children, will after some time not ever bother about "racism".
It will be unthinkable that someone with a different "colour" should have lesser rights in society.However, the uneducated, or sheltered/lagging societies, may still do the same mistakes - discriminating on religion, skin colour and other superficial features.So although our soceity learns alot from this globalisation, we may still do similar mistakes, ignoring previous learnings or forgetting to apply it universally.Redemption should strictly be to fix the broken laws so that they are at equilibrum, halting this pendulum, not let it swing too much.In fact, how much we manage to slow down the pendumul, is a sign of spiritual / humanistic maturity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573280</id>
	<title>Wow - have we become a forum of English majors?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1262026020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This movie was as simple and transparent as it gets.  It was great eye candy, making the retelling a tired story worth the price of admission.  Accept it for that, and try not to read too much into it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This movie was as simple and transparent as it gets .
It was great eye candy , making the retelling a tired story worth the price of admission .
Accept it for that , and try not to read too much into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This movie was as simple and transparent as it gets.
It was great eye candy, making the retelling a tired story worth the price of admission.
Accept it for that, and try not to read too much into it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580132</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1262079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Except of course that the Native Americans were nomadic, had no notion of property rights (unlike the Na'vi and their Hometree), and rejected the idea of owning land.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except of course that the Native Americans were nomadic , had no notion of property rights ( unlike the Na'vi and their Hometree ) , and rejected the idea of owning land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except of course that the Native Americans were nomadic, had no notion of property rights (unlike the Na'vi and their Hometree), and rejected the idea of owning land.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589828</id>
	<title>Filming is not only entertainment.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262099940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is is a form of art, communication and even propaganda.</p><p>Anybody claiming that films are only entertainment should be classed as ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is is a form of art , communication and even propaganda.Anybody claiming that films are only entertainment should be classed as ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is is a form of art, communication and even propaganda.Anybody claiming that films are only entertainment should be classed as ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571114</id>
	<title>Standard James Cameron theme.</title>
	<author>cybaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262016060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anti-Technology/Military-Industrial themes are pretty common theme in James Cameron's movies:
<ol>
<li>Terminator: Military creates supercomputer that attempts to destroy humanity</li><li>The Abyss: Military tries to recover a nuclear weapon, and endangers an intelligent species of underwater life.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-Technology/Military-Industrial themes are pretty common theme in James Cameron 's movies : Terminator : Military creates supercomputer that attempts to destroy humanityThe Abyss : Military tries to recover a nuclear weapon , and endangers an intelligent species of underwater life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-Technology/Military-Industrial themes are pretty common theme in James Cameron's movies:

Terminator: Military creates supercomputer that attempts to destroy humanityThe Abyss: Military tries to recover a nuclear weapon, and endangers an intelligent species of underwater life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574852</id>
	<title>Re:I got something different from that movie.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262033820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had. The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were. Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have. The thing is, they didn't develop weapons. Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.</p></div><p>The plot required a) that they had a military advantage somewhere, and b) that they weren't living like real humans do in primitive societies on Earth. In other words, it was a heavily contrived plot device. This sort of thing is common in environmental science fiction. For example, see Anne McCaffrey's "Powers that be" and clones like Sherri Tepper's "After Long Silence". In both cases, evil human corporations try to exploit a planet, but are foiled by the planet itself. I find the idea to be something of a wish fulfillment scenario.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What new possibilities could this technology have had? could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5? I'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.</p></div><p>They could have, but they didn't. An irony here is that the Navi technology (I'll call it that even if it's due to pure uncontrolled evolution ) would probably be more valuable to the alleged interstellar war that humanity was involved in than the unobtainium. A combination of human and Navi technology would probably clobber whatever the enemy was (given that humans were already apparently holding their own).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had .
The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were .
Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have .
The thing is , they did n't develop weapons .
Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.The plot required a ) that they had a military advantage somewhere , and b ) that they were n't living like real humans do in primitive societies on Earth .
In other words , it was a heavily contrived plot device .
This sort of thing is common in environmental science fiction .
For example , see Anne McCaffrey 's " Powers that be " and clones like Sherri Tepper 's " After Long Silence " .
In both cases , evil human corporations try to exploit a planet , but are foiled by the planet itself .
I find the idea to be something of a wish fulfillment scenario.What new possibilities could this technology have had ?
could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5 ?
I 'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.They could have , but they did n't .
An irony here is that the Navi technology ( I 'll call it that even if it 's due to pure uncontrolled evolution ) would probably be more valuable to the alleged interstellar war that humanity was involved in than the unobtainium .
A combination of human and Navi technology would probably clobber whatever the enemy was ( given that humans were already apparently holding their own ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was astounded by the organic synaptic link technology the Navi had.
The Navi were possibly more advanced than we were.
Their organic synaptic link tech was more advanced than anything we have.
The thing is, they didn't develop weapons.
Their entire planet was a linked up hive mind.The plot required a) that they had a military advantage somewhere, and b) that they weren't living like real humans do in primitive societies on Earth.
In other words, it was a heavily contrived plot device.
This sort of thing is common in environmental science fiction.
For example, see Anne McCaffrey's "Powers that be" and clones like Sherri Tepper's "After Long Silence".
In both cases, evil human corporations try to exploit a planet, but are foiled by the planet itself.
I find the idea to be something of a wish fulfillment scenario.What new possibilities could this technology have had?
could they start growing Organic ships like the Vorlons from Babylon 5?
I'd imagine the Navi probably had better math and science than us.They could have, but they didn't.
An irony here is that the Navi technology (I'll call it that even if it's due to pure uncontrolled evolution ) would probably be more valuable to the alleged interstellar war that humanity was involved in than the unobtainium.
A combination of human and Navi technology would probably clobber whatever the enemy was (given that humans were already apparently holding their own).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754</id>
	<title>White people suck in space</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262014080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always read it as another "white people suck" movie, but this time, "white people suck in space", which is equally weird, because Cameron is about as white as they come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always read it as another " white people suck " movie , but this time , " white people suck in space " , which is equally weird , because Cameron is about as white as they come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always read it as another "white people suck" movie, but this time, "white people suck in space", which is equally weird, because Cameron is about as white as they come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571444</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262017740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of this is standard noble savage stuff.</p></div><p>Ah, that old false dichotomy. There are vicious technocrats, noble technocrats, vicious savages, and noble savages. In evolutionary terms, there is very little difference between man in a cave and man in space: don't expect a few thousand years of civilisation to change our nature.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney Disease</p></div><p>The same thing that happened 50 years ago, or that happens now to the majority of people who cannot afford treatment for the complex disease you mention. Now, are you arguing that society is necessarily more peaceful when there is the medical knowledge for everyone to lead a long, healthy life? Can I offer you Earth as a counterexample?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.</p></div><p>That pretty much depends on what part of the world you come from, and where you draw the line between savage and technocrat. Fairly hospitable weather, flora and fauna in southern England where I am now.</p><p>Tell me, friend, would you rather enjoy 30 free years or 70 in a cage? Of course we would both rather enjoy 70 free years, but where can one find that option today?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of this is standard noble savage stuff.Ah , that old false dichotomy .
There are vicious technocrats , noble technocrats , vicious savages , and noble savages .
In evolutionary terms , there is very little difference between man in a cave and man in space : do n't expect a few thousand years of civilisation to change our nature.what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney DiseaseThe same thing that happened 50 years ago , or that happens now to the majority of people who can not afford treatment for the complex disease you mention .
Now , are you arguing that society is necessarily more peaceful when there is the medical knowledge for everyone to lead a long , healthy life ?
Can I offer you Earth as a counterexample ? Also , in the real world packs of wolves and bears do n't just leave you alone.That pretty much depends on what part of the world you come from , and where you draw the line between savage and technocrat .
Fairly hospitable weather , flora and fauna in southern England where I am now.Tell me , friend , would you rather enjoy 30 free years or 70 in a cage ?
Of course we would both rather enjoy 70 free years , but where can one find that option today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of this is standard noble savage stuff.Ah, that old false dichotomy.
There are vicious technocrats, noble technocrats, vicious savages, and noble savages.
In evolutionary terms, there is very little difference between man in a cave and man in space: don't expect a few thousand years of civilisation to change our nature.what do they do if one of their buddies is born with a genetic disease like Polycystic Kidney DiseaseThe same thing that happened 50 years ago, or that happens now to the majority of people who cannot afford treatment for the complex disease you mention.
Now, are you arguing that society is necessarily more peaceful when there is the medical knowledge for everyone to lead a long, healthy life?
Can I offer you Earth as a counterexample?Also, in the real world packs of wolves and bears don't just leave you alone.That pretty much depends on what part of the world you come from, and where you draw the line between savage and technocrat.
Fairly hospitable weather, flora and fauna in southern England where I am now.Tell me, friend, would you rather enjoy 30 free years or 70 in a cage?
Of course we would both rather enjoy 70 free years, but where can one find that option today?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571536</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262018280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your problem is that you do not think for yourself, but have had ideologies of "left" and "right" defined FOR you by someone else.   I better stop now or your brain might hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your problem is that you do not think for yourself , but have had ideologies of " left " and " right " defined FOR you by someone else .
I better stop now or your brain might hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your problem is that you do not think for yourself, but have had ideologies of "left" and "right" defined FOR you by someone else.
I better stop now or your brain might hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589962</id>
	<title>Yeah, sure.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262101140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that helps you to sleep at night, all the power to you.</p><p>The fact is that the US intended to control the flow of oil, and the Bush administration initially allowed only US companies to bid for contracts for Iraqi infrastructure (to the chagrin of the British and other US allies on the Iraq adventure).</p><p>Of course all these grandiose plans came falling down like a house of cards when the little pesky problem of Iraqi insurgency replaced the dreams of a population receiving invaders with honey and flowers....</p><p>It is astounding that there are people still defending the band of vagrants that allowed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia to become ever bigger problems while wasting resources and lives in decapitating a regime that was all tied up anyway and that had nothing to do with terrorism and that posed no threat to anybody's security anymore</p><p>As for liberating 30 million of Iraqis, well, obviously many of them don't feel liberated, and unfortunately we can't ask the opinions of the hundreds of thousands of dead people and we can't even project statistically their opinions because the invading forces didn't put an effort to count the Iraqi casualties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that helps you to sleep at night , all the power to you.The fact is that the US intended to control the flow of oil , and the Bush administration initially allowed only US companies to bid for contracts for Iraqi infrastructure ( to the chagrin of the British and other US allies on the Iraq adventure ) .Of course all these grandiose plans came falling down like a house of cards when the little pesky problem of Iraqi insurgency replaced the dreams of a population receiving invaders with honey and flowers....It is astounding that there are people still defending the band of vagrants that allowed Afghanistan , Pakistan , Yemen and Somalia to become ever bigger problems while wasting resources and lives in decapitating a regime that was all tied up anyway and that had nothing to do with terrorism and that posed no threat to anybody 's security anymoreAs for liberating 30 million of Iraqis , well , obviously many of them do n't feel liberated , and unfortunately we ca n't ask the opinions of the hundreds of thousands of dead people and we ca n't even project statistically their opinions because the invading forces did n't put an effort to count the Iraqi casualties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that helps you to sleep at night, all the power to you.The fact is that the US intended to control the flow of oil, and the Bush administration initially allowed only US companies to bid for contracts for Iraqi infrastructure (to the chagrin of the British and other US allies on the Iraq adventure).Of course all these grandiose plans came falling down like a house of cards when the little pesky problem of Iraqi insurgency replaced the dreams of a population receiving invaders with honey and flowers....It is astounding that there are people still defending the band of vagrants that allowed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia to become ever bigger problems while wasting resources and lives in decapitating a regime that was all tied up anyway and that had nothing to do with terrorism and that posed no threat to anybody's security anymoreAs for liberating 30 million of Iraqis, well, obviously many of them don't feel liberated, and unfortunately we can't ask the opinions of the hundreds of thousands of dead people and we can't even project statistically their opinions because the invading forces didn't put an effort to count the Iraqi casualties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574478</id>
	<title>Non sequitur?</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1262031780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie</p></div><p>Why should the contents of a fictional story pose any limitations on how the story is told? It's like saying we should only watch scifi stories in zero gravity cinemas, or medievil fantasy stories can only be written on magical scrolls<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why have a technically sophisticated , anti-technical movieWhy should the contents of a fictional story pose any limitations on how the story is told ?
It 's like saying we should only watch scifi stories in zero gravity cinemas , or medievil fantasy stories can only be written on magical scrolls : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movieWhy should the contents of a fictional story pose any limitations on how the story is told?
It's like saying we should only watch scifi stories in zero gravity cinemas, or medievil fantasy stories can only be written on magical scrolls :/
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572982</id>
	<title>The Reason...</title>
	<author>drej</author>
	<datestamp>1262024760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are drawn to the movie because it's shiny and goes boom and woosh.

No deep explanation there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are drawn to the movie because it 's shiny and goes boom and woosh .
No deep explanation there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are drawn to the movie because it's shiny and goes boom and woosh.
No deep explanation there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571894</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't get "tech is bad" from the movie at all.</title>
	<author>melf-san</author>
	<datestamp>1262019960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if only the company used undeground mining technology in place of strip mining, everything would be ok<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if only the company used undeground mining technology in place of strip mining , everything would be ok : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if only the company used undeground mining technology in place of strip mining, everything would be ok :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571468</id>
	<title>Stealing vs. controlling access.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1262017920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;You're saying the message of the movie isn't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq?</p><p>Except for two clumsily-inserted phrases of "fight terror with terror", and "shock and awe", I saw very little comparison to our situation in Iraq.  Even the "unobtanium" played only a 30 second role in the film, but OK, I'll give that one, too.</p><p>Mostly, this was a story of a technologically superior force taking a technologically inferior force's resources by force.  The parallel I drew most strongly was with Native Americans.</p><p>As for Iraq, yes, it is true we are not overtly stealing oil from Iraq, that we know of.  Whether this is due to altruism or just because they haven't figured out a way to do it overtly is up for debate.  But regardless, the simple fact is that securing energy resources is a #1 priority for the continued American Way of Life.  That by itself is worth trillions of dollars, and the people with major financial stakes in our situation know this and no doubt are pressuring our government, directly and indirectly, to make sure that energy lifeline stays intact.</p><p>On top of this, there are trillions of dollars worth of energy contracts at stake in obtaining, transporting, and selling Iraqi oil.  To insinuate that no one is profiting off of the American intervention in Iraq simply because no one is overtly stealing the oil is naive.  To speculate that people in our government are not either directly or indirectly pressured by such monied interests is likewise naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You 're saying the message of the movie is n't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq ? Except for two clumsily-inserted phrases of " fight terror with terror " , and " shock and awe " , I saw very little comparison to our situation in Iraq .
Even the " unobtanium " played only a 30 second role in the film , but OK , I 'll give that one , too.Mostly , this was a story of a technologically superior force taking a technologically inferior force 's resources by force .
The parallel I drew most strongly was with Native Americans.As for Iraq , yes , it is true we are not overtly stealing oil from Iraq , that we know of .
Whether this is due to altruism or just because they have n't figured out a way to do it overtly is up for debate .
But regardless , the simple fact is that securing energy resources is a # 1 priority for the continued American Way of Life .
That by itself is worth trillions of dollars , and the people with major financial stakes in our situation know this and no doubt are pressuring our government , directly and indirectly , to make sure that energy lifeline stays intact.On top of this , there are trillions of dollars worth of energy contracts at stake in obtaining , transporting , and selling Iraqi oil .
To insinuate that no one is profiting off of the American intervention in Iraq simply because no one is overtly stealing the oil is naive .
To speculate that people in our government are not either directly or indirectly pressured by such monied interests is likewise naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;You're saying the message of the movie isn't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq?Except for two clumsily-inserted phrases of "fight terror with terror", and "shock and awe", I saw very little comparison to our situation in Iraq.
Even the "unobtanium" played only a 30 second role in the film, but OK, I'll give that one, too.Mostly, this was a story of a technologically superior force taking a technologically inferior force's resources by force.
The parallel I drew most strongly was with Native Americans.As for Iraq, yes, it is true we are not overtly stealing oil from Iraq, that we know of.
Whether this is due to altruism or just because they haven't figured out a way to do it overtly is up for debate.
But regardless, the simple fact is that securing energy resources is a #1 priority for the continued American Way of Life.
That by itself is worth trillions of dollars, and the people with major financial stakes in our situation know this and no doubt are pressuring our government, directly and indirectly, to make sure that energy lifeline stays intact.On top of this, there are trillions of dollars worth of energy contracts at stake in obtaining, transporting, and selling Iraqi oil.
To insinuate that no one is profiting off of the American intervention in Iraq simply because no one is overtly stealing the oil is naive.
To speculate that people in our government are not either directly or indirectly pressured by such monied interests is likewise naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570900</id>
	<title>Woah</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1262014980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife and I went to the watch it on the 24th. Pretty good movie. At the end, she said "thank you for taking me to a chick flick" and I said, ":drool: I want one of those monitors."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife and I went to the watch it on the 24th .
Pretty good movie .
At the end , she said " thank you for taking me to a chick flick " and I said , " : drool : I want one of those monitors .
" : ) [ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife and I went to the watch it on the 24th.
Pretty good movie.
At the end, she said "thank you for taking me to a chick flick" and I said, ":drool: I want one of those monitors.
" :)[John]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570938</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>Dyne09</author>
	<datestamp>1262015160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In space, no one can hear you suck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In space , no one can hear you suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In space, no one can hear you suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30611768</id>
	<title>Re:Taken out of context, clearly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262271360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nature feeds itself and wins the zero sum game. Humans lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature feeds itself and wins the zero sum game .
Humans lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature feeds itself and wins the zero sum game.
Humans lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571692</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262019060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. and dances with wolves was the first story EVER to explore this idea. Cameron totally stole it LOL OMG! My god you are one dense, closeted nerd. Why do you even bother commenting on the things of which you are so profoundly ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
and dances with wolves was the first story EVER to explore this idea .
Cameron totally stole it LOL OMG !
My god you are one dense , closeted nerd .
Why do you even bother commenting on the things of which you are so profoundly ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
and dances with wolves was the first story EVER to explore this idea.
Cameron totally stole it LOL OMG!
My god you are one dense, closeted nerd.
Why do you even bother commenting on the things of which you are so profoundly ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571224</id>
	<title>Lots of "borrowed" themes</title>
	<author>Zantetsuken</author>
	<datestamp>1262016600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People rage on about how "insanely innovative" the movie is - when the majority of monsters/alien life and general story plots are just the same as countless others retold with different names.
<br> <br>
Most people are comparing the general plot to "White Man vs Native American" - honestly I'm not so familiar with that history, so I've likened it to the Vietnam war.
<br> <br>
At least a good 3 or so of the alien wild-life are not at all unique to Avatar. The dog-like creature is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couerl" title="wikipedia.org">Coeurl</a> [wikipedia.org], and I'm pretty sure the horse creature is a lightning horse from Final Fantasy though I don't remember the name. The flyer I'm sure enough that the flyer is also from Final Fantasy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People rage on about how " insanely innovative " the movie is - when the majority of monsters/alien life and general story plots are just the same as countless others retold with different names .
Most people are comparing the general plot to " White Man vs Native American " - honestly I 'm not so familiar with that history , so I 've likened it to the Vietnam war .
At least a good 3 or so of the alien wild-life are not at all unique to Avatar .
The dog-like creature is a Coeurl [ wikipedia.org ] , and I 'm pretty sure the horse creature is a lightning horse from Final Fantasy though I do n't remember the name .
The flyer I 'm sure enough that the flyer is also from Final Fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People rage on about how "insanely innovative" the movie is - when the majority of monsters/alien life and general story plots are just the same as countless others retold with different names.
Most people are comparing the general plot to "White Man vs Native American" - honestly I'm not so familiar with that history, so I've likened it to the Vietnam war.
At least a good 3 or so of the alien wild-life are not at all unique to Avatar.
The dog-like creature is a Coeurl [wikipedia.org], and I'm pretty sure the horse creature is a lightning horse from Final Fantasy though I don't remember the name.
The flyer I'm sure enough that the flyer is also from Final Fantasy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571280</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1262016960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i was in that camp too until i learned more about how they made the movie.  i saw it was blown away.  i found the story to be inane, but the rest of it was nothing short of orgasmic to me.  It's the shortest 2h and 40m of your life.  i even dug the performances.  Zoe blew me away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i was in that camp too until i learned more about how they made the movie .
i saw it was blown away .
i found the story to be inane , but the rest of it was nothing short of orgasmic to me .
It 's the shortest 2h and 40m of your life .
i even dug the performances .
Zoe blew me away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was in that camp too until i learned more about how they made the movie.
i saw it was blown away.
i found the story to be inane, but the rest of it was nothing short of orgasmic to me.
It's the shortest 2h and 40m of your life.
i even dug the performances.
Zoe blew me away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850</id>
	<title>it's called "entertainment"</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1262014680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>frankly i'm a little tired of all the "deep" discussions about this movie popping up all over the place. it's just entertainment, for crying out loud. why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie? because it makes money! why are we drawn to it? well, because of its aesthetics, romantic content, exciting action, and good old marketing. case closed.<br> <br>

p.s. and even if cameron truly believes in the "messages" of the movie, big freaking deal. he's a director. there are many people in the world whose opinion on such difficult philosophical topics has much higher value for me than that of someone in show business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>frankly i 'm a little tired of all the " deep " discussions about this movie popping up all over the place .
it 's just entertainment , for crying out loud .
why have a technically sophisticated , anti-technical movie ?
because it makes money !
why are we drawn to it ?
well , because of its aesthetics , romantic content , exciting action , and good old marketing .
case closed .
p.s. and even if cameron truly believes in the " messages " of the movie , big freaking deal .
he 's a director .
there are many people in the world whose opinion on such difficult philosophical topics has much higher value for me than that of someone in show business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frankly i'm a little tired of all the "deep" discussions about this movie popping up all over the place.
it's just entertainment, for crying out loud.
why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie?
because it makes money!
why are we drawn to it?
well, because of its aesthetics, romantic content, exciting action, and good old marketing.
case closed.
p.s. and even if cameron truly believes in the "messages" of the movie, big freaking deal.
he's a director.
there are many people in the world whose opinion on such difficult philosophical topics has much higher value for me than that of someone in show business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571248</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>oahazmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1262016720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a distaste for the movie prior to seeing it, but that was because whenever I asked someone who had been raving about it for details on the plot, they could only tell me how "pretty" or "awesome" everything was. I didn't make fun of it (because how can I make fun of it if I haven't seen the source material outside of a 90 second trailer?) but I was vocal in my disinterest in it simply because no one I knew could give me two sentences worth of story description.
<br> <br>
This weekend, when my wife and I needed to get out for a little bit, we gambled and saw it. To my surprise, I didn't hate it. In fact I enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it's the best movie of the year or going to sweep the Academy Awards like I've heard from some, but it was very well done.
<br> <br>
Don't get me wrong, I still criticize the movie. Specifically the design of some of the wildlife (some of the designs just seemed to vary from impractical to unnecessary). There were some things that just seemed "alien for the sake of alien".
<br> <br>
Yes, it's a "going native" film like Dances with Wolves (even Cameron said that was part of his inspiration) but it really does stand on it's own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a distaste for the movie prior to seeing it , but that was because whenever I asked someone who had been raving about it for details on the plot , they could only tell me how " pretty " or " awesome " everything was .
I did n't make fun of it ( because how can I make fun of it if I have n't seen the source material outside of a 90 second trailer ?
) but I was vocal in my disinterest in it simply because no one I knew could give me two sentences worth of story description .
This weekend , when my wife and I needed to get out for a little bit , we gambled and saw it .
To my surprise , I did n't hate it .
In fact I enjoyed it .
I would n't say it 's the best movie of the year or going to sweep the Academy Awards like I 've heard from some , but it was very well done .
Do n't get me wrong , I still criticize the movie .
Specifically the design of some of the wildlife ( some of the designs just seemed to vary from impractical to unnecessary ) .
There were some things that just seemed " alien for the sake of alien " .
Yes , it 's a " going native " film like Dances with Wolves ( even Cameron said that was part of his inspiration ) but it really does stand on it 's own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a distaste for the movie prior to seeing it, but that was because whenever I asked someone who had been raving about it for details on the plot, they could only tell me how "pretty" or "awesome" everything was.
I didn't make fun of it (because how can I make fun of it if I haven't seen the source material outside of a 90 second trailer?
) but I was vocal in my disinterest in it simply because no one I knew could give me two sentences worth of story description.
This weekend, when my wife and I needed to get out for a little bit, we gambled and saw it.
To my surprise, I didn't hate it.
In fact I enjoyed it.
I wouldn't say it's the best movie of the year or going to sweep the Academy Awards like I've heard from some, but it was very well done.
Don't get me wrong, I still criticize the movie.
Specifically the design of some of the wildlife (some of the designs just seemed to vary from impractical to unnecessary).
There were some things that just seemed "alien for the sake of alien".
Yes, it's a "going native" film like Dances with Wolves (even Cameron said that was part of his inspiration) but it really does stand on it's own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</id>
	<title>White guilt</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262014440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though not as prevalent as it was just a couple decades ago, "white guilt" is a feeling of responsibility particularly experienced by privileged white people for the suffering of blacks under the slave system. It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery. The guilt manifests itself as an embrace of Black culture, a willingness to provide undeserved support to the African American underclass, and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures.</p><p>So if the technology haves want to slum it with the have-nots, it shouldn't be any big surprise that they embrace an ideology that makes themselves the criminal and thus flagellating themselves thereby redeeming themselves. Of course, they do it in a way that doesn't actually put them in direct contact with the have-nots. This is typical behavior of those embracing cultural/technological guilt as a path to spiritual salvation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though not as prevalent as it was just a couple decades ago , " white guilt " is a feeling of responsibility particularly experienced by privileged white people for the suffering of blacks under the slave system .
It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery .
The guilt manifests itself as an embrace of Black culture , a willingness to provide undeserved support to the African American underclass , and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures.So if the technology haves want to slum it with the have-nots , it should n't be any big surprise that they embrace an ideology that makes themselves the criminal and thus flagellating themselves thereby redeeming themselves .
Of course , they do it in a way that does n't actually put them in direct contact with the have-nots .
This is typical behavior of those embracing cultural/technological guilt as a path to spiritual salvation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though not as prevalent as it was just a couple decades ago, "white guilt" is a feeling of responsibility particularly experienced by privileged white people for the suffering of blacks under the slave system.
It is a modern phenomenon that such guilt is felt by people that are completely unconnected to slavery.
The guilt manifests itself as an embrace of Black culture, a willingness to provide undeserved support to the African American underclass, and a tendency to promote multiculturalism and its anti-judgmental system of evaluating cultures.So if the technology haves want to slum it with the have-nots, it shouldn't be any big surprise that they embrace an ideology that makes themselves the criminal and thus flagellating themselves thereby redeeming themselves.
Of course, they do it in a way that doesn't actually put them in direct contact with the have-nots.
This is typical behavior of those embracing cultural/technological guilt as a path to spiritual salvation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572592</id>
	<title>Anti-Corporate, not anti-tech</title>
	<author>userw014</author>
	<datestamp>1262023140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't recall hearing dialogue that was anti-technology.  However, I did hear a lot that could be construed as anti-corporate, especially about how the primary purpose of the human mission there was return on investment for the shareholders.
<br>
There was also the entire motivation of the human character - a former soldier for a government that could restore function to a wounded soldiers limbs (legs) but wouldn't because it cost too much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall hearing dialogue that was anti-technology .
However , I did hear a lot that could be construed as anti-corporate , especially about how the primary purpose of the human mission there was return on investment for the shareholders .
There was also the entire motivation of the human character - a former soldier for a government that could restore function to a wounded soldiers limbs ( legs ) but would n't because it cost too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall hearing dialogue that was anti-technology.
However, I did hear a lot that could be construed as anti-corporate, especially about how the primary purpose of the human mission there was return on investment for the shareholders.
There was also the entire motivation of the human character - a former soldier for a government that could restore function to a wounded soldiers limbs (legs) but wouldn't because it cost too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577874</id>
	<title>Re:I was rooting for...</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1262009640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed.</p></div><p>I'd have to disagree.  As long as it's not in our back yard, I don't think we would care too much so long as our energy needs/resources were being met.  You underestimate greed and the things that people will do, or ignore, when they are desperate.  Sure in the hypothetical future earth I imagine there was some uproar over what happened, but people will just sit back in front of their TVs when the story switches to some future celebrity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed.I 'd have to disagree .
As long as it 's not in our back yard , I do n't think we would care too much so long as our energy needs/resources were being met .
You underestimate greed and the things that people will do , or ignore , when they are desperate .
Sure in the hypothetical future earth I imagine there was some uproar over what happened , but people will just sit back in front of their TVs when the story switches to some future celebrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no way even a futuristic United States would allow such actions to proceed.I'd have to disagree.
As long as it's not in our back yard, I don't think we would care too much so long as our energy needs/resources were being met.
You underestimate greed and the things that people will do, or ignore, when they are desperate.
Sure in the hypothetical future earth I imagine there was some uproar over what happened, but people will just sit back in front of their TVs when the story switches to some future celebrity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572718</id>
	<title>Yawn...</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1262023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the movie wasn't anti-technology.  It was anti-greed.  Did the guy who wrote this article even watch the movie?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the movie was n't anti-technology .
It was anti-greed .
Did the guy who wrote this article even watch the movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the movie wasn't anti-technology.
It was anti-greed.
Did the guy who wrote this article even watch the movie?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</id>
	<title>Iraq</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262015820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The villian used the phrases "fight terror with terror" and "preemptive attack". He was described as gearing up a "shock and awe" attack.</p><p>He was using the military to steal a valuable foreign resource, and funnel it into private/corporate hands, killing civilians along the way.</p><p>You're saying the message of the movie isn't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq?</p><p>For the record, I don't think it is a fair comparison because we're not stealing oil in Iraq. The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil. If anything, going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the US. We're footing the bill for the war, and for reconstruction. We're funneling tons of money into Iraq, and liberated 30 million people from a cruel dictator. But given that Cameron is a vocal Democrat who drives a Prius and has suggested Bush lied about Iraq to steal oil, I'm sure he very much intended that to be the message of the movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The villian used the phrases " fight terror with terror " and " preemptive attack " .
He was described as gearing up a " shock and awe " attack.He was using the military to steal a valuable foreign resource , and funnel it into private/corporate hands , killing civilians along the way.You 're saying the message of the movie is n't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq ? For the record , I do n't think it is a fair comparison because we 're not stealing oil in Iraq .
The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil .
If anything , going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the US .
We 're footing the bill for the war , and for reconstruction .
We 're funneling tons of money into Iraq , and liberated 30 million people from a cruel dictator .
But given that Cameron is a vocal Democrat who drives a Prius and has suggested Bush lied about Iraq to steal oil , I 'm sure he very much intended that to be the message of the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The villian used the phrases "fight terror with terror" and "preemptive attack".
He was described as gearing up a "shock and awe" attack.He was using the military to steal a valuable foreign resource, and funnel it into private/corporate hands, killing civilians along the way.You're saying the message of the movie isn't supposed to be a parallel for Iraq?For the record, I don't think it is a fair comparison because we're not stealing oil in Iraq.
The Iraqi people own the oil and receive every penny for selling the oil.
If anything, going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the US.
We're footing the bill for the war, and for reconstruction.
We're funneling tons of money into Iraq, and liberated 30 million people from a cruel dictator.
But given that Cameron is a vocal Democrat who drives a Prius and has suggested Bush lied about Iraq to steal oil, I'm sure he very much intended that to be the message of the movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580114</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262078700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say that 90\% of people doesn't have a clue about how a USB connection works. This knowledge is confined to an exclusive elite. Call them scientists or priests, you choose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say that 90 \ % of people does n't have a clue about how a USB connection works .
This knowledge is confined to an exclusive elite .
Call them scientists or priests , you choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say that 90\% of people doesn't have a clue about how a USB connection works.
This knowledge is confined to an exclusive elite.
Call them scientists or priests, you choose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575196</id>
	<title>Re:One doesn't have to be against x to moderate it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261992360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al Gore is an eco-profiteer!  His "Inconvenient Truth" did more to line his pockets than help the environment.  The shoddy science used has actually hurt the cause of environmentalism, causing great confusion regarding the subject.</p><p>So, jollyreaper, get your naive head out of the sand and quote peer-reviewed research, not a selfish politician's cash-cow movie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore is an eco-profiteer !
His " Inconvenient Truth " did more to line his pockets than help the environment .
The shoddy science used has actually hurt the cause of environmentalism , causing great confusion regarding the subject.So , jollyreaper , get your naive head out of the sand and quote peer-reviewed research , not a selfish politician 's cash-cow movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore is an eco-profiteer!
His "Inconvenient Truth" did more to line his pockets than help the environment.
The shoddy science used has actually hurt the cause of environmentalism, causing great confusion regarding the subject.So, jollyreaper, get your naive head out of the sand and quote peer-reviewed research, not a selfish politician's cash-cow movie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571142</id>
	<title>Taken out of context, clearly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262016180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not anti-technology at all.  We, as humans, abuse things by nature.  We use up resources, only to go find another resource to pilfer, etc.  Look at how we consume natural resources for pete's sake.  Same goes for technology.  A good example of that is cell phones.  Instead of using texting or pictures for what it's purpose was, we have teens 'sext'ing' on their phones, taking crazy viral photos/videos and clogging up the internet, updating their  status every 5 minutes, ignoring reality and real contact for a digital one and hardly even know how to use the 10 digit keypad on the phone, its REAL intent:  To call someone and not be tied to land line communication.  Again, a lot of this going to be opinionated to a great extent, but the movie is almost a future, truth concept of technology than it is a contradictory for it, IMHO.  Furthermore, you also can't tell me if our current world found an alien world, that we wouldn't rape it for all it's worth?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not anti-technology at all .
We , as humans , abuse things by nature .
We use up resources , only to go find another resource to pilfer , etc .
Look at how we consume natural resources for pete 's sake .
Same goes for technology .
A good example of that is cell phones .
Instead of using texting or pictures for what it 's purpose was , we have teens 'sext'ing ' on their phones , taking crazy viral photos/videos and clogging up the internet , updating their status every 5 minutes , ignoring reality and real contact for a digital one and hardly even know how to use the 10 digit keypad on the phone , its REAL intent : To call someone and not be tied to land line communication .
Again , a lot of this going to be opinionated to a great extent , but the movie is almost a future , truth concept of technology than it is a contradictory for it , IMHO .
Furthermore , you also ca n't tell me if our current world found an alien world , that we would n't rape it for all it 's worth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not anti-technology at all.
We, as humans, abuse things by nature.
We use up resources, only to go find another resource to pilfer, etc.
Look at how we consume natural resources for pete's sake.
Same goes for technology.
A good example of that is cell phones.
Instead of using texting or pictures for what it's purpose was, we have teens 'sext'ing' on their phones, taking crazy viral photos/videos and clogging up the internet, updating their  status every 5 minutes, ignoring reality and real contact for a digital one and hardly even know how to use the 10 digit keypad on the phone, its REAL intent:  To call someone and not be tied to land line communication.
Again, a lot of this going to be opinionated to a great extent, but the movie is almost a future, truth concept of technology than it is a contradictory for it, IMHO.
Furthermore, you also can't tell me if our current world found an alien world, that we wouldn't rape it for all it's worth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573932</id>
	<title>Re:Who says "we" are drawn to it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262029200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>those little blue smurf-y things</p></div><p> they're far from little. they're like three times bigger than humans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>those little blue smurf-y things they 're far from little .
they 're like three times bigger than humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those little blue smurf-y things they're far from little.
they're like three times bigger than humans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571348</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>computational super</author>
	<datestamp>1262017200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa... I think I agree with you... just let me go get my dictionary first...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa... I think I agree with you... just let me go get my dictionary first.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa... I think I agree with you... just let me go get my dictionary first...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573356</id>
	<title>Color me blue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find the shift from summer blue penis to winter blue boobies refreshing and inspired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the shift from summer blue penis to winter blue boobies refreshing and inspired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the shift from summer blue penis to winter blue boobies refreshing and inspired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571564</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262018400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Packs of wolves and bears don't leave you alone there, either, as Jake found out.  They leave you alone if they don't know you're there, you're smart enough to stay out of their areas, not piss them off, etc.</p><p>The Na'vi aren't peaceful people.  They're warriors.  Living in harmony with nature, in the real world, means that sometimes you eat a bit of nature, and sometimes it eats you.  The movie did not portray a Disney-esqe vision.  We know things in their own environment think they're tasty, and we know this is not the first "time of great sorrow", and the last wasn't that long ago.  IMO, it's an amazingly beautiful vision of a world, but hardly an Eden.</p><p>I don't know anything about PKD, but from the movie it's fair to assume people who aren't healthy don't become full members of the tribe.  I found it an interesting concept.  Which is better, a society that requires everyone to be productive, or a society (like ours) that encourages people to be unproductive (living on welfare, begging on the streets, living in their parents' basements until they're 35...).  Neither is perfect.  Our society has a tremendous surplus, so we can accommodate a lot of unproductive people.  Societies that can't, don't.  I didn't get the impression the Na'vi don't have enough to go around, and they simply didn't address your point at all.  I suppose when they need "modern" medicine, they do the same thing we do when we need 22nd century medicine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Packs of wolves and bears do n't leave you alone there , either , as Jake found out .
They leave you alone if they do n't know you 're there , you 're smart enough to stay out of their areas , not piss them off , etc.The Na'vi are n't peaceful people .
They 're warriors .
Living in harmony with nature , in the real world , means that sometimes you eat a bit of nature , and sometimes it eats you .
The movie did not portray a Disney-esqe vision .
We know things in their own environment think they 're tasty , and we know this is not the first " time of great sorrow " , and the last was n't that long ago .
IMO , it 's an amazingly beautiful vision of a world , but hardly an Eden.I do n't know anything about PKD , but from the movie it 's fair to assume people who are n't healthy do n't become full members of the tribe .
I found it an interesting concept .
Which is better , a society that requires everyone to be productive , or a society ( like ours ) that encourages people to be unproductive ( living on welfare , begging on the streets , living in their parents ' basements until they 're 35... ) .
Neither is perfect .
Our society has a tremendous surplus , so we can accommodate a lot of unproductive people .
Societies that ca n't , do n't .
I did n't get the impression the Na'vi do n't have enough to go around , and they simply did n't address your point at all .
I suppose when they need " modern " medicine , they do the same thing we do when we need 22nd century medicine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Packs of wolves and bears don't leave you alone there, either, as Jake found out.
They leave you alone if they don't know you're there, you're smart enough to stay out of their areas, not piss them off, etc.The Na'vi aren't peaceful people.
They're warriors.
Living in harmony with nature, in the real world, means that sometimes you eat a bit of nature, and sometimes it eats you.
The movie did not portray a Disney-esqe vision.
We know things in their own environment think they're tasty, and we know this is not the first "time of great sorrow", and the last wasn't that long ago.
IMO, it's an amazingly beautiful vision of a world, but hardly an Eden.I don't know anything about PKD, but from the movie it's fair to assume people who aren't healthy don't become full members of the tribe.
I found it an interesting concept.
Which is better, a society that requires everyone to be productive, or a society (like ours) that encourages people to be unproductive (living on welfare, begging on the streets, living in their parents' basements until they're 35...).
Neither is perfect.
Our society has a tremendous surplus, so we can accommodate a lot of unproductive people.
Societies that can't, don't.
I didn't get the impression the Na'vi don't have enough to go around, and they simply didn't address your point at all.
I suppose when they need "modern" medicine, they do the same thing we do when we need 22nd century medicine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004</id>
	<title>Re:White people suck in space</title>
	<author>LateArthurDent</author>
	<datestamp>1262015400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I always read it as another "white people suck" movie, but this time, "white people suck in space", which is equally weird, because Cameron is about as white as they come.</p></div><p>It's a "people who try to take things from others by force suck" movie.  As are the other movies in the same category you are referring to.  The fact that the people who did this to Native Americans happened to be white is completely irrelevant, and your comment not only implies that all whites think they have the right to take from others by force, but it also implies that Cameron somehow should be bound to also think that, because he happens to be white.</p><p>Basically, don't make things about race when they're not.  Besides, I personally saw it more as anti-corporate (in the same way as Alien) then anti-technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always read it as another " white people suck " movie , but this time , " white people suck in space " , which is equally weird , because Cameron is about as white as they come.It 's a " people who try to take things from others by force suck " movie .
As are the other movies in the same category you are referring to .
The fact that the people who did this to Native Americans happened to be white is completely irrelevant , and your comment not only implies that all whites think they have the right to take from others by force , but it also implies that Cameron somehow should be bound to also think that , because he happens to be white.Basically , do n't make things about race when they 're not .
Besides , I personally saw it more as anti-corporate ( in the same way as Alien ) then anti-technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always read it as another "white people suck" movie, but this time, "white people suck in space", which is equally weird, because Cameron is about as white as they come.It's a "people who try to take things from others by force suck" movie.
As are the other movies in the same category you are referring to.
The fact that the people who did this to Native Americans happened to be white is completely irrelevant, and your comment not only implies that all whites think they have the right to take from others by force, but it also implies that Cameron somehow should be bound to also think that, because he happens to be white.Basically, don't make things about race when they're not.
Besides, I personally saw it more as anti-corporate (in the same way as Alien) then anti-technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571334</id>
	<title>Luddite Pr0n</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1262017140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luddite Pr0n created by anti-Luddite technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luddite Pr0n created by anti-Luddite technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luddite Pr0n created by anti-Luddite technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573092</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262025240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the record, I don't think it is a fair comparison because we're not stealing oil in Iraq. The Iraqi people own the oil...</p></div><p>Maybe in theory, in practice the oil is controlled by a government that came to power in a process heavily controlled by the USA and that government remains heavily dependent on the USA. Saying that the Iraqis own the oil is like saying that a small child, rather than his parents, owns his toys.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>...and receive every penny for selling the oil.</p></div><p>Not directly. First, the supposedly substantial cost of "extracting" the oil is skimmed off the top (mostly by foreign corporations) and even then the remaining money is only spent on projects that are supposedly for the benefit of the Iraqi people (the money is not given to them directly).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If anything, going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the US. We're footing the bill for the war, and for reconstruction. We're funneling tons of money into Iraq,...</p></div><p>But the Iraq war has been a very very good dream for the high level executives at companies like Haliburton (lots of profits to justify fabulous incentive bonuses) - executives who happened to be close friends with the Bush administration.</p><p>It would have been much cheaper just to give the Bush/Cheney cronies the money directly - rather than funneling it through a ridiculously inefficient war. But, ironically it's the efficient method that's illegal.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>...and liberated 30 million people from a cruel dictator.</p></div><p>There's a school of thought that war is bad, really bad, so bad that there are only two circumstances where a country is allowed to go to war: either the other country attacks first or the other country is in the process of doing something so bad (e.g. all out genocide) that there is broad consensus in the international community that war is absolutely necessary. In particular, one leader disliking another leader and wanting "regime change" is not, even slightly, an acceptable justification for war.</p><p>Now I know the Bush administration tries to get off on all kinds of technicalities: the current Iraq war is merely a resumption of the first Iraq war because Iraq supposedly violated the cease fire (e.g. with it's supposed WMD). Thing is, if you step away from all the bizarre technicalities and look at the big picture - the current war on Iraq is an unjustified war of aggression. Incidentally, other leaders, besides Bush, that have pursued wars of aggression include Hitler and Saddam Hussein.</p><p>I suppose, ultimately, we have to admit that we don't know whether wars of aggression are always bad. Maybe sometimes they're good. Maybe we need to move toward a world where countries are much more eager and willing to go to war - where war is a routine tool to be used to advance a country's global standing.</p><p>But there are two concerns. First, at a practical level, a case could be made that WWI was result of countries being too eager to use war as to advance their global standing (and, incidentally, that WWII was basically a resumption of WWI). Second, and more fundamentally, war results in large numbers of innocent people being killed and injured. War may also prevent certain other people from being killed and injured. But we are left with a moral dilemma: is it OK to kill certain innocent people in order to save the lives of certain other innocent people. For example, is it OK to perform fatal medical experiments on certain innocent people (without their consent), if we expect the research to save the lives of certain other innocent people.</p><p>Whenever I hear the claim that the Iraqi people are better off, I think to myself: "Even the ones who are dead?"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But given that Cameron is a vocal Democrat who drives a Prius...</p></div><p>Oh, the horror! Driving a Prius is far worse than being a child molesting, mass murdering, drug dealing, terrorist.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>...and has suggested Bush lied about Iraq to steal oil, I'm sure he very much intended that to be the message of the movie.</p></div><p>I have no idea what Cameron's intended message was but I would disagree that the Iraq war was about stealing oil for the American people: it was about war profiteering to enrich certain high level executives who were close friends with Bush/Cheney (funded in part part through profits skimmed off Iraqi oil but mostly funded by US tax dollars).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , I do n't think it is a fair comparison because we 're not stealing oil in Iraq .
The Iraqi people own the oil...Maybe in theory , in practice the oil is controlled by a government that came to power in a process heavily controlled by the USA and that government remains heavily dependent on the USA .
Saying that the Iraqis own the oil is like saying that a small child , rather than his parents , owns his toys....and receive every penny for selling the oil.Not directly .
First , the supposedly substantial cost of " extracting " the oil is skimmed off the top ( mostly by foreign corporations ) and even then the remaining money is only spent on projects that are supposedly for the benefit of the Iraqi people ( the money is not given to them directly ) .If anything , going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the US .
We 're footing the bill for the war , and for reconstruction .
We 're funneling tons of money into Iraq,...But the Iraq war has been a very very good dream for the high level executives at companies like Haliburton ( lots of profits to justify fabulous incentive bonuses ) - executives who happened to be close friends with the Bush administration.It would have been much cheaper just to give the Bush/Cheney cronies the money directly - rather than funneling it through a ridiculously inefficient war .
But , ironically it 's the efficient method that 's illegal....and liberated 30 million people from a cruel dictator.There 's a school of thought that war is bad , really bad , so bad that there are only two circumstances where a country is allowed to go to war : either the other country attacks first or the other country is in the process of doing something so bad ( e.g .
all out genocide ) that there is broad consensus in the international community that war is absolutely necessary .
In particular , one leader disliking another leader and wanting " regime change " is not , even slightly , an acceptable justification for war.Now I know the Bush administration tries to get off on all kinds of technicalities : the current Iraq war is merely a resumption of the first Iraq war because Iraq supposedly violated the cease fire ( e.g .
with it 's supposed WMD ) .
Thing is , if you step away from all the bizarre technicalities and look at the big picture - the current war on Iraq is an unjustified war of aggression .
Incidentally , other leaders , besides Bush , that have pursued wars of aggression include Hitler and Saddam Hussein.I suppose , ultimately , we have to admit that we do n't know whether wars of aggression are always bad .
Maybe sometimes they 're good .
Maybe we need to move toward a world where countries are much more eager and willing to go to war - where war is a routine tool to be used to advance a country 's global standing.But there are two concerns .
First , at a practical level , a case could be made that WWI was result of countries being too eager to use war as to advance their global standing ( and , incidentally , that WWII was basically a resumption of WWI ) .
Second , and more fundamentally , war results in large numbers of innocent people being killed and injured .
War may also prevent certain other people from being killed and injured .
But we are left with a moral dilemma : is it OK to kill certain innocent people in order to save the lives of certain other innocent people .
For example , is it OK to perform fatal medical experiments on certain innocent people ( without their consent ) , if we expect the research to save the lives of certain other innocent people.Whenever I hear the claim that the Iraqi people are better off , I think to myself : " Even the ones who are dead ?
" But given that Cameron is a vocal Democrat who drives a Prius...Oh , the horror !
Driving a Prius is far worse than being a child molesting , mass murdering , drug dealing , terrorist....and has suggested Bush lied about Iraq to steal oil , I 'm sure he very much intended that to be the message of the movie.I have no idea what Cameron 's intended message was but I would disagree that the Iraq war was about stealing oil for the American people : it was about war profiteering to enrich certain high level executives who were close friends with Bush/Cheney ( funded in part part through profits skimmed off Iraqi oil but mostly funded by US tax dollars ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, I don't think it is a fair comparison because we're not stealing oil in Iraq.
The Iraqi people own the oil...Maybe in theory, in practice the oil is controlled by a government that came to power in a process heavily controlled by the USA and that government remains heavily dependent on the USA.
Saying that the Iraqis own the oil is like saying that a small child, rather than his parents, owns his toys....and receive every penny for selling the oil.Not directly.
First, the supposedly substantial cost of "extracting" the oil is skimmed off the top (mostly by foreign corporations) and even then the remaining money is only spent on projects that are supposedly for the benefit of the Iraqi people (the money is not given to them directly).If anything, going into Iraq was a fiscal nightmare for the US.
We're footing the bill for the war, and for reconstruction.
We're funneling tons of money into Iraq,...But the Iraq war has been a very very good dream for the high level executives at companies like Haliburton (lots of profits to justify fabulous incentive bonuses) - executives who happened to be close friends with the Bush administration.It would have been much cheaper just to give the Bush/Cheney cronies the money directly - rather than funneling it through a ridiculously inefficient war.
But, ironically it's the efficient method that's illegal....and liberated 30 million people from a cruel dictator.There's a school of thought that war is bad, really bad, so bad that there are only two circumstances where a country is allowed to go to war: either the other country attacks first or the other country is in the process of doing something so bad (e.g.
all out genocide) that there is broad consensus in the international community that war is absolutely necessary.
In particular, one leader disliking another leader and wanting "regime change" is not, even slightly, an acceptable justification for war.Now I know the Bush administration tries to get off on all kinds of technicalities: the current Iraq war is merely a resumption of the first Iraq war because Iraq supposedly violated the cease fire (e.g.
with it's supposed WMD).
Thing is, if you step away from all the bizarre technicalities and look at the big picture - the current war on Iraq is an unjustified war of aggression.
Incidentally, other leaders, besides Bush, that have pursued wars of aggression include Hitler and Saddam Hussein.I suppose, ultimately, we have to admit that we don't know whether wars of aggression are always bad.
Maybe sometimes they're good.
Maybe we need to move toward a world where countries are much more eager and willing to go to war - where war is a routine tool to be used to advance a country's global standing.But there are two concerns.
First, at a practical level, a case could be made that WWI was result of countries being too eager to use war as to advance their global standing (and, incidentally, that WWII was basically a resumption of WWI).
Second, and more fundamentally, war results in large numbers of innocent people being killed and injured.
War may also prevent certain other people from being killed and injured.
But we are left with a moral dilemma: is it OK to kill certain innocent people in order to save the lives of certain other innocent people.
For example, is it OK to perform fatal medical experiments on certain innocent people (without their consent), if we expect the research to save the lives of certain other innocent people.Whenever I hear the claim that the Iraqi people are better off, I think to myself: "Even the ones who are dead?
"But given that Cameron is a vocal Democrat who drives a Prius...Oh, the horror!
Driving a Prius is far worse than being a child molesting, mass murdering, drug dealing, terrorist....and has suggested Bush lied about Iraq to steal oil, I'm sure he very much intended that to be the message of the movie.I have no idea what Cameron's intended message was but I would disagree that the Iraq war was about stealing oil for the American people: it was about war profiteering to enrich certain high level executives who were close friends with Bush/Cheney (funded in part part through profits skimmed off Iraqi oil but mostly funded by US tax dollars).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570726</id>
	<title>Who said it was anti-technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262013900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw it as showing bad uses of technology, and more about retelling the story of the native americans as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw it as showing bad uses of technology , and more about retelling the story of the native americans as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw it as showing bad uses of technology, and more about retelling the story of the native americans as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573448</id>
	<title>An alternate explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is it that really suffers from this white guilt?  I would argue that Cameron is telling one of the most simplistic stories that we have.  It's a simple tale of good guys vs bad guys with the lesson that greed is bad. Not a whole lot of depth there, and hardly controversial.</p><p>When Jesus railed against money changers and warned of the difficulties of the rich getting into Heaven, was he suffering from hebrew guilt?  Or was he simply stating a simple truth?</p><p>Don't hurt others.<br>Don't take their stuff.<br>Don't let things replace your essential humanity.</p><p>I find that the people who see 'White Guilt' in all of these archetypal stories are merely projecting their own emotions.  Perhaps they are the ones who feel guilty.  They are the ones who cast 'America'  as the bad guy.</p><p>It seems that if any story today has a big corporate or military bad guy in it, conservatives will get their panties in a bunch because the bad guys are  'obviously' a stand-in for America.  Yet, they are the ones making that conclusion.  I wonder why that is?  It says more about the critic than the artist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is it that really suffers from this white guilt ?
I would argue that Cameron is telling one of the most simplistic stories that we have .
It 's a simple tale of good guys vs bad guys with the lesson that greed is bad .
Not a whole lot of depth there , and hardly controversial.When Jesus railed against money changers and warned of the difficulties of the rich getting into Heaven , was he suffering from hebrew guilt ?
Or was he simply stating a simple truth ? Do n't hurt others.Do n't take their stuff.Do n't let things replace your essential humanity.I find that the people who see 'White Guilt ' in all of these archetypal stories are merely projecting their own emotions .
Perhaps they are the ones who feel guilty .
They are the ones who cast 'America ' as the bad guy.It seems that if any story today has a big corporate or military bad guy in it , conservatives will get their panties in a bunch because the bad guys are 'obviously ' a stand-in for America .
Yet , they are the ones making that conclusion .
I wonder why that is ?
It says more about the critic than the artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is it that really suffers from this white guilt?
I would argue that Cameron is telling one of the most simplistic stories that we have.
It's a simple tale of good guys vs bad guys with the lesson that greed is bad.
Not a whole lot of depth there, and hardly controversial.When Jesus railed against money changers and warned of the difficulties of the rich getting into Heaven, was he suffering from hebrew guilt?
Or was he simply stating a simple truth?Don't hurt others.Don't take their stuff.Don't let things replace your essential humanity.I find that the people who see 'White Guilt' in all of these archetypal stories are merely projecting their own emotions.
Perhaps they are the ones who feel guilty.
They are the ones who cast 'America'  as the bad guy.It seems that if any story today has a big corporate or military bad guy in it, conservatives will get their panties in a bunch because the bad guys are  'obviously' a stand-in for America.
Yet, they are the ones making that conclusion.
I wonder why that is?
It says more about the critic than the artist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574410</id>
	<title>Re:Iraq</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262031420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Riiight. When Cameron first wrote his draft of the script in 1994, he intended to predict and condemn US military action a decade in the future.</p></div><p>The Iraqi invasion was in 2003. He had plenty of time to work it into a fifteen year old script.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Riiight .
When Cameron first wrote his draft of the script in 1994 , he intended to predict and condemn US military action a decade in the future.The Iraqi invasion was in 2003 .
He had plenty of time to work it into a fifteen year old script .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Riiight.
When Cameron first wrote his draft of the script in 1994, he intended to predict and condemn US military action a decade in the future.The Iraqi invasion was in 2003.
He had plenty of time to work it into a fifteen year old script.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571508</id>
	<title>Re:White guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262018100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This movie had more in common with the Native American and other native technologically primitive races that had their land taken from them by force (which has happened countless times all over the world).  Not all of them are innocents but many were just people living their lives and not intending harm to anyone when suddenly they find themselves at war for no reason.   The victims of the morally corrupt, power hungry, douchebags of the world.</p><p>Not really anything about slavery though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This movie had more in common with the Native American and other native technologically primitive races that had their land taken from them by force ( which has happened countless times all over the world ) .
Not all of them are innocents but many were just people living their lives and not intending harm to anyone when suddenly they find themselves at war for no reason .
The victims of the morally corrupt , power hungry , douchebags of the world.Not really anything about slavery though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This movie had more in common with the Native American and other native technologically primitive races that had their land taken from them by force (which has happened countless times all over the world).
Not all of them are innocents but many were just people living their lives and not intending harm to anyone when suddenly they find themselves at war for no reason.
The victims of the morally corrupt, power hungry, douchebags of the world.Not really anything about slavery though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572364</id>
	<title>Re:Why assume the Na'vi are low-tech?</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1262022240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does that sound even remotely accidental?</p></div></blockquote><p>No.  Evolution is not accidental.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that sound even remotely accidental ? No .
Evolution is not accidental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that sound even remotely accidental?No.
Evolution is not accidental.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028</id>
	<title>The Anti-American...</title>
	<author>rshol</author>
	<datestamp>1262015460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...stuff was worse than the anti-tech stuff.  Dances With Wolves in space.  Bah.  Hollywood hates the culture and technology that allow it to exist.

Don't waste your money, go see Sherlock Holmes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...stuff was worse than the anti-tech stuff .
Dances With Wolves in space .
Bah. Hollywood hates the culture and technology that allow it to exist .
Do n't waste your money , go see Sherlock Holmes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...stuff was worse than the anti-tech stuff.
Dances With Wolves in space.
Bah.  Hollywood hates the culture and technology that allow it to exist.
Don't waste your money, go see Sherlock Holmes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30583102</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Noble Savage Fallacy</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1262108400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Europe up until the middle ages it was generally considered the right of a father to accept or reject a child.  Rejected children were left out to die.  Primitive societies have always been pretty cutthroat regarding survival.</p><p>Depiction of native tribes as being "wise" is definitely revisionism.  Most native societies were in constant warfare with each other before Europeans arrived.  Many native societies were more than happy to engage Europeans to benefit their own standing at the expense of opposing tribes.  And where do people think that "slash-and-burn" agriculture was practiced?</p><p>Even in the movie the "noble" Na'vi don't even consent to have debate with those who aren't of proper social status (let alone outsiders).  I'd hardly consider that an enlightened perspective.</p><p>Hey, I'm all for treating indigenous populations nicely, and working around them as best as you can.  However, they tend to massively underutilize resources compared to even the greenest modern technologies, so it is hard to say to a developed nation that they can't be allowed to sustain an extra 10k healthy people because somebody else needs the same amount of land to raise 5 tribesmen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Europe up until the middle ages it was generally considered the right of a father to accept or reject a child .
Rejected children were left out to die .
Primitive societies have always been pretty cutthroat regarding survival.Depiction of native tribes as being " wise " is definitely revisionism .
Most native societies were in constant warfare with each other before Europeans arrived .
Many native societies were more than happy to engage Europeans to benefit their own standing at the expense of opposing tribes .
And where do people think that " slash-and-burn " agriculture was practiced ? Even in the movie the " noble " Na'vi do n't even consent to have debate with those who are n't of proper social status ( let alone outsiders ) .
I 'd hardly consider that an enlightened perspective.Hey , I 'm all for treating indigenous populations nicely , and working around them as best as you can .
However , they tend to massively underutilize resources compared to even the greenest modern technologies , so it is hard to say to a developed nation that they ca n't be allowed to sustain an extra 10k healthy people because somebody else needs the same amount of land to raise 5 tribesmen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Europe up until the middle ages it was generally considered the right of a father to accept or reject a child.
Rejected children were left out to die.
Primitive societies have always been pretty cutthroat regarding survival.Depiction of native tribes as being "wise" is definitely revisionism.
Most native societies were in constant warfare with each other before Europeans arrived.
Many native societies were more than happy to engage Europeans to benefit their own standing at the expense of opposing tribes.
And where do people think that "slash-and-burn" agriculture was practiced?Even in the movie the "noble" Na'vi don't even consent to have debate with those who aren't of proper social status (let alone outsiders).
I'd hardly consider that an enlightened perspective.Hey, I'm all for treating indigenous populations nicely, and working around them as best as you can.
However, they tend to massively underutilize resources compared to even the greenest modern technologies, so it is hard to say to a developed nation that they can't be allowed to sustain an extra 10k healthy people because somebody else needs the same amount of land to raise 5 tribesmen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571564</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30626290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30583102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30626046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30591756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30611768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30595512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30582916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30586598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30582182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_1325213_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30583534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30589856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30582916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30586598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30584904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30626290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30591756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30611768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30626046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30582182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30595512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30570790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571664
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30577124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30575740
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30576180
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30583102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30572376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30573338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30580002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_1325213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30578596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30574088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_1325213.30571670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
