<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_01_233249</id>
	<title>Ireland's Blasphemy Law Goes Into Effect</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262347980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>stereoroid writes <i>"As of January 1, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law">it is a crime in Ireland to commit Blasphemy</a>. The law was changed in July 2009 to fill a gap in the Irish Constitution, which <a href="http://www.independent.ie/national-news/opponents-to-continue-fight-after-blasphemy-made-illegal-1838252.html">states that it is a crime but does not define what it is</a>, an omission highlighted in a Supreme Court decision in 1999. To mark the occasion, Atheist Ireland published a list of <a href="http://blasphemy.ie/">25 blasphemous quotations</a> on the blasphemy.ie website, from such controversial figures as Bjork, Frank Zappa, Richard Dawkins, Randy Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI. (The last-mentioned was quoting a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor, but that's no excuse.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>stereoroid writes " As of January 1 , it is a crime in Ireland to commit Blasphemy .
The law was changed in July 2009 to fill a gap in the Irish Constitution , which states that it is a crime but does not define what it is , an omission highlighted in a Supreme Court decision in 1999 .
To mark the occasion , Atheist Ireland published a list of 25 blasphemous quotations on the blasphemy.ie website , from such controversial figures as Bjork , Frank Zappa , Richard Dawkins , Randy Newman , and Pope Benedict XVI .
( The last-mentioned was quoting a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor , but that 's no excuse .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stereoroid writes "As of January 1, it is a crime in Ireland to commit Blasphemy.
The law was changed in July 2009 to fill a gap in the Irish Constitution, which states that it is a crime but does not define what it is, an omission highlighted in a Supreme Court decision in 1999.
To mark the occasion, Atheist Ireland published a list of 25 blasphemous quotations on the blasphemy.ie website, from such controversial figures as Bjork, Frank Zappa, Richard Dawkins, Randy Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI.
(The last-mentioned was quoting a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor, but that's no excuse.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620202</id>
	<title>TFA says it best</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1262462640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p>"Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous."</p><p>Can't put it any better than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Blasphemy laws are unjust : they silence people in order to protect ideas .
In a civilised society , people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous .
" Ca n't put it any better than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas.
In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.
"Can't put it any better than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621774</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>lagomorpha2</author>
	<datestamp>1262443140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Secular Humanism?  Is that considered a religion in Ireland because it's offensive to secular humanists to pass a ban on blasphemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Secular Humanism ?
Is that considered a religion in Ireland because it 's offensive to secular humanists to pass a ban on blasphemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Secular Humanism?
Is that considered a religion in Ireland because it's offensive to secular humanists to pass a ban on blasphemy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30663838</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1262700720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't mean we shouldn't make a reasonable attempt at minimizing it where it's unnecessary.  I may be an atheist, but I would hardly advocate teaching in schools that children should reject god and become atheists.  I think it's only fair that, say, Christians politely agree to the same standard.  Is the result going to be an education without god?  I suppose.  Might it occasionally contradict the religious beliefs of some?  It might, in fact.  But we hardly do ourselves a service by compromising academic principles to appease religious thought.  What good is science if we refuse to go where the chase leads us on those occasions where the chase contradicts our beliefs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't mean we should n't make a reasonable attempt at minimizing it where it 's unnecessary .
I may be an atheist , but I would hardly advocate teaching in schools that children should reject god and become atheists .
I think it 's only fair that , say , Christians politely agree to the same standard .
Is the result going to be an education without god ?
I suppose .
Might it occasionally contradict the religious beliefs of some ?
It might , in fact .
But we hardly do ourselves a service by compromising academic principles to appease religious thought .
What good is science if we refuse to go where the chase leads us on those occasions where the chase contradicts our beliefs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't mean we shouldn't make a reasonable attempt at minimizing it where it's unnecessary.
I may be an atheist, but I would hardly advocate teaching in schools that children should reject god and become atheists.
I think it's only fair that, say, Christians politely agree to the same standard.
Is the result going to be an education without god?
I suppose.
Might it occasionally contradict the religious beliefs of some?
It might, in fact.
But we hardly do ourselves a service by compromising academic principles to appease religious thought.
What good is science if we refuse to go where the chase leads us on those occasions where the chase contradicts our beliefs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30627606</id>
	<title>Re:Proof of god's non-existence</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1262436780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?</i></p><p>the NEED TO KNOW, in primitive man (ie, most of us) is stronger than the will to FIND OUT the truth.</p><p>its a very rare person that can see a traffic jam up ahead, has been in them enough times AND can choose to not sit for hours in one, when one has a chance.</p><p>I've examined all the possible angles of god vs non-god and the non-god answers always seem more rational and less like 'magic'.</p><p>speaking of magic, why do religious people believe in sky wizards but usually don't believe in magic?  same basic concepts here, why the diff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , then , do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned ? the NEED TO KNOW , in primitive man ( ie , most of us ) is stronger than the will to FIND OUT the truth.its a very rare person that can see a traffic jam up ahead , has been in them enough times AND can choose to not sit for hours in one , when one has a chance.I 've examined all the possible angles of god vs non-god and the non-god answers always seem more rational and less like 'magic'.speaking of magic , why do religious people believe in sky wizards but usually do n't believe in magic ?
same basic concepts here , why the diff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?the NEED TO KNOW, in primitive man (ie, most of us) is stronger than the will to FIND OUT the truth.its a very rare person that can see a traffic jam up ahead, has been in them enough times AND can choose to not sit for hours in one, when one has a chance.I've examined all the possible angles of god vs non-god and the non-god answers always seem more rational and less like 'magic'.speaking of magic, why do religious people believe in sky wizards but usually don't believe in magic?
same basic concepts here, why the diff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619618</id>
	<title>I wonder if the Irish are asshamed</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1262369100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the only other place on Earth that is creating or trying to create blasphemy laws in the year 2010 is the Islamic world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the only other place on Earth that is creating or trying to create blasphemy laws in the year 2010 is the Islamic world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the only other place on Earth that is creating or trying to create blasphemy laws in the year 2010 is the Islamic world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619604</id>
	<title>Re:I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>halfey</author>
	<datestamp>1262368860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I heard somebody said atheism is a religion, that's why they're call 'atheist'. Now can I embrace science and become a 'scientist'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I heard somebody said atheism is a religion , that 's why they 're call 'atheist' .
Now can I embrace science and become a 'scientist ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I heard somebody said atheism is a religion, that's why they're call 'atheist'.
Now can I embrace science and become a 'scientist'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620892</id>
	<title>Medieval halfwits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262429580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such a country should not allowed to be part of the European Union with laws like this. Relgious insanity should be reserved  Anyway, I can't see how a 'blasphemy' law could actually be useful, if any case came to court. Facts would surely have to be presented, and given their total absence in religion, I don't see any way that any such law could stand up, in front of any sane people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such a country should not allowed to be part of the European Union with laws like this .
Relgious insanity should be reserved Anyway , I ca n't see how a 'blasphemy ' law could actually be useful , if any case came to court .
Facts would surely have to be presented , and given their total absence in religion , I do n't see any way that any such law could stand up , in front of any sane people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such a country should not allowed to be part of the European Union with laws like this.
Relgious insanity should be reserved  Anyway, I can't see how a 'blasphemy' law could actually be useful, if any case came to court.
Facts would surely have to be presented, and given their total absence in religion, I don't see any way that any such law could stand up, in front of any sane people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30625942</id>
	<title>Impossible law, since there is no God</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262426040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Impossible law, since there is no God.</p><p>If you say there is - PROVE IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Impossible law , since there is no God.If you say there is - PROVE IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Impossible law, since there is no God.If you say there is - PROVE IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629598</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.</p></div><p>There are two ways of looking at things you don't understand, realizing that you don't understand and continuing to search for understanding, or making up a reality that "explains" these things and pretending that all is known according to this "reality". I think this GP is spot on.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion.  Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect. Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.</p></div><p>This is exactly the point. Religion, at least organized religion, is claiming answers to these questions, when in fact the real answers still may be a long way away, and will likely be found only by the scientific method, if at all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached." It won't happen, our natural desire to <i>know</i> which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.</p></div><p>This is really twisting things around. Atheists tend to object to religion making the claim that certain questions cannot be answered (approaching them is often considered blasphemy) and therefore [Insert Deity] did it should be accepted as the answer.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process. Or at least don't make his life even worse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School? Do you feel that all religious people are <i>a priori</i> ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?</p></div><p>I think there are those who are genuinely exploring these questions, from both religious and scientific viewpoints, solely for the sake of knowledge, and I would like to believe that if they ever discover the "truth", they will accept it and change their beliefs according to their discoveries.</p><p>I also think that there are those who are in it simply as a means to gain political power. Far too much of organized religion (no matter the faith) falls into this category and as such, are no different than those others who go to school, law school or business school or whatever, simply as a means of making their fortune and their name. Power is their ultimate goal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Religion is a mild schizophrenia .
A disease where people do n't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it , but a made-up internal model.There are two ways of looking at things you do n't understand , realizing that you do n't understand and continuing to search for understanding , or making up a reality that " explains " these things and pretending that all is known according to this " reality " .
I think this GP is spot on.You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion .
Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect .
Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for , but that does n't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method can not be applied.This is exactly the point .
Religion , at least organized religion , is claiming answers to these questions , when in fact the real answers still may be a long way away , and will likely be found only by the scientific method , if at all.Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say " Well !
These are not scientific questions , therefore they can not and will not be approached .
" It wo n't happen , our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.This is really twisting things around .
Atheists tend to object to religion making the claim that certain questions can not be answered ( approaching them is often considered blasphemy ) and therefore [ Insert Deity ] did it should be accepted as the answer.If you see someone who is very religious ( and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state , when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it ) , try to find the roots , help him face and fix them , and let him work the way up again , fixing the disparities in the process .
Or at least do n't make his life even worse .
: ) Do you suppose this approach would work at say , the Harvard Divinity School ?
Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins , simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up ? I think there are those who are genuinely exploring these questions , from both religious and scientific viewpoints , solely for the sake of knowledge , and I would like to believe that if they ever discover the " truth " , they will accept it and change their beliefs according to their discoveries.I also think that there are those who are in it simply as a means to gain political power .
Far too much of organized religion ( no matter the faith ) falls into this category and as such , are no different than those others who go to school , law school or business school or whatever , simply as a means of making their fortune and their name .
Power is their ultimate goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religion is a mild schizophrenia.
A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.There are two ways of looking at things you don't understand, realizing that you don't understand and continuing to search for understanding, or making up a reality that "explains" these things and pretending that all is known according to this "reality".
I think this GP is spot on.You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion.
Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect.
Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.This is exactly the point.
Religion, at least organized religion, is claiming answers to these questions, when in fact the real answers still may be a long way away, and will likely be found only by the scientific method, if at all.Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well!
These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached.
" It won't happen, our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.This is really twisting things around.
Atheists tend to object to religion making the claim that certain questions cannot be answered (approaching them is often considered blasphemy) and therefore [Insert Deity] did it should be accepted as the answer.If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process.
Or at least don't make his life even worse.
:)Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School?
Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?I think there are those who are genuinely exploring these questions, from both religious and scientific viewpoints, solely for the sake of knowledge, and I would like to believe that if they ever discover the "truth", they will accept it and change their beliefs according to their discoveries.I also think that there are those who are in it simply as a means to gain political power.
Far too much of organized religion (no matter the faith) falls into this category and as such, are no different than those others who go to school, law school or business school or whatever, simply as a means of making their fortune and their name.
Power is their ultimate goal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30638860</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What defines a state of intelligence/sapience?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What defines a state of intelligence/sapience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What defines a state of intelligence/sapience?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620162</id>
	<title>Re:I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1262375700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ireland and Iran both share "aria", meaning "noble" in Indo-european language group, as the root of their name.
</p><p>
Guess they share more than the name root.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ireland and Iran both share " aria " , meaning " noble " in Indo-european language group , as the root of their name .
Guess they share more than the name root .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ireland and Iran both share "aria", meaning "noble" in Indo-european language group, as the root of their name.
Guess they share more than the name root.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30625068</id>
	<title>Re:It's all just proof...</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1262464080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the skyfrom believing, without proof, of a magic being in the sky</p></div><p>Another straw man argument. See my previous comment - people believe in God's existence for a reasons. Many of us have spent a lot of time thinking about whether the evidence convinces us or not. . Many of us have chagned our minds: since my teens from uncertain, to Christian, to agnostic, to Christian again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from believing , without proof , of a magic being in the skyfrom believing , without proof , of a magic being in the skyAnother straw man argument .
See my previous comment - people believe in God 's existence for a reasons .
Many of us have spent a lot of time thinking about whether the evidence convinces us or not .
. Many of us have chagned our minds : since my teens from uncertain , to Christian , to agnostic , to Christian again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the skyfrom believing, without proof, of a magic being in the skyAnother straw man argument.
See my previous comment - people believe in God's existence for a reasons.
Many of us have spent a lot of time thinking about whether the evidence convinces us or not.
. Many of us have chagned our minds: since my teens from uncertain, to Christian, to agnostic, to Christian again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262355600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with &ldquo;beliefs&rdquo; that&rsquo;s a straw-man word.<br>Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don&rsquo;t use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model. E.g. &ldquo;God wants it to be that way, therefore it&rsquo;s OK that I lost my house, and I don&rsquo;t have to break down and shoot myself.&rdquo;<br>In some way it is a useful mechanism, because it helps people who can&rsquo;t cope with the actual real world, not to go crazy. We all do an even milder form of it, where we just twist reality a bit... which is basically repression, for the same reason.<br>The difference between what we do, and what is religion, is that at their level of mind-twisting, tryin to reason with them is a lost cause.</p><p>Because I now understand this, I do not have any hatred for religious people anymore. Everyone is just trying to cope with reality in his way. And tomorrow, you could fall in a pit where your only choices would be to go crazy, or to twist your mind just as badly.<br>Hell, half our behavior is based on wrong social condidioning, which basically also is a mind-twist that is not attached to reality anymore.</p><p>Yes, religious statements have no place in any debate. Not in school, not in government, not anywhere. But there is also no point in just calling them idiots and hating them. We, as a community, must face the roots of what caused people to fall back to religion to manage their lives. Because otherwise, we also are only repressing the problem.</p><p>If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process.<br>Or at least don&rsquo;t make his life even worse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>(Be warned though, as that reality bubble can span multiple generations, many people and many things. You may find that you&rsquo;re simply unable to do anything about it, other than invent a time machine and prevent a couple of wars.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with    beliefs    that    s a straw-man word.Religion is a mild schizophrenia .
A disease where people don    t use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it , but a made-up internal model .
E.g.    God wants it to be that way , therefore it    s OK that I lost my house , and I don    t have to break down and shoot myself.    In some way it is a useful mechanism , because it helps people who can    t cope with the actual real world , not to go crazy .
We all do an even milder form of it , where we just twist reality a bit... which is basically repression , for the same reason.The difference between what we do , and what is religion , is that at their level of mind-twisting , tryin to reason with them is a lost cause.Because I now understand this , I do not have any hatred for religious people anymore .
Everyone is just trying to cope with reality in his way .
And tomorrow , you could fall in a pit where your only choices would be to go crazy , or to twist your mind just as badly.Hell , half our behavior is based on wrong social condidioning , which basically also is a mind-twist that is not attached to reality anymore.Yes , religious statements have no place in any debate .
Not in school , not in government , not anywhere .
But there is also no point in just calling them idiots and hating them .
We , as a community , must face the roots of what caused people to fall back to religion to manage their lives .
Because otherwise , we also are only repressing the problem.If you see someone who is very religious ( and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state , when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it ) , try to find the roots , help him face and fix them , and let him work the way up again , fixing the disparities in the process.Or at least don    t make his life even worse .
: ) ( Be warned though , as that reality bubble can span multiple generations , many people and many things .
You may find that you    re simply unable to do anything about it , other than invent a time machine and prevent a couple of wars .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with “beliefs” that’s a straw-man word.Religion is a mild schizophrenia.
A disease where people don’t use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.
E.g. “God wants it to be that way, therefore it’s OK that I lost my house, and I don’t have to break down and shoot myself.”In some way it is a useful mechanism, because it helps people who can’t cope with the actual real world, not to go crazy.
We all do an even milder form of it, where we just twist reality a bit... which is basically repression, for the same reason.The difference between what we do, and what is religion, is that at their level of mind-twisting, tryin to reason with them is a lost cause.Because I now understand this, I do not have any hatred for religious people anymore.
Everyone is just trying to cope with reality in his way.
And tomorrow, you could fall in a pit where your only choices would be to go crazy, or to twist your mind just as badly.Hell, half our behavior is based on wrong social condidioning, which basically also is a mind-twist that is not attached to reality anymore.Yes, religious statements have no place in any debate.
Not in school, not in government, not anywhere.
But there is also no point in just calling them idiots and hating them.
We, as a community, must face the roots of what caused people to fall back to religion to manage their lives.
Because otherwise, we also are only repressing the problem.If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process.Or at least don’t make his life even worse.
:)(Be warned though, as that reality bubble can span multiple generations, many people and many things.
You may find that you’re simply unable to do anything about it, other than invent a time machine and prevent a couple of wars.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620082</id>
	<title>"sacred by any religion" ...</title>
	<author>Boahlicious</author>
	<datestamp>1262374620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...with emphasis on the word "any".</p><p>This therefore includes the religion I am creating right now, in which any attempt to silence/condemn blasphemy to any religion is considered blasphemy.</p><p>If we're going to leave gaping loopholes in a law, we might as well make infinite loops out of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...with emphasis on the word " any " .This therefore includes the religion I am creating right now , in which any attempt to silence/condemn blasphemy to any religion is considered blasphemy.If we 're going to leave gaping loopholes in a law , we might as well make infinite loops out of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with emphasis on the word "any".This therefore includes the religion I am creating right now, in which any attempt to silence/condemn blasphemy to any religion is considered blasphemy.If we're going to leave gaping loopholes in a law, we might as well make infinite loops out of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534</id>
	<title>yet</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1262352120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>another nail in the coffin of the corrupt and incompetent Fianna Fail government (yes the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name) who voted this in</p><p>never will forget what they have done to this country</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>another nail in the coffin of the corrupt and incompetent Fianna Fail government ( yes the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name ) who voted this innever will forget what they have done to this country</tokentext>
<sentencetext>another nail in the coffin of the corrupt and incompetent Fianna Fail government (yes the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name) who voted this innever will forget what they have done to this country</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30630300</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>Krioni</author>
	<datestamp>1262509800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>cause outrage amongst all of our members.</p></div><p>Shouldn't that be something like "within each individual unique member" - or is  even that too much like a multiple item set?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>cause outrage amongst all of our members.Should n't that be something like " within each individual unique member " - or is even that too much like a multiple item set ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cause outrage amongst all of our members.Shouldn't that be something like "within each individual unique member" - or is  even that too much like a multiple item set?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622280</id>
	<title>Heresy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262447940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.</p></div><p>Heresy! <b>Richard Dawkins</b> is his prophet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no god , and Mohammed is his prophet.Heresy !
Richard Dawkins is his prophet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.Heresy!
Richard Dawkins is his prophet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622816</id>
	<title>Not really all...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262451780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also live in a place which has such law, and for quite some time; about "hurting religious feelings" (I kid you not, it's worded like that)</p><p>The only cases when it was uphold dealt with, for all intents and purposes, our state religion. Accidentally, it's also Roman Catholicism; perhaps their excessive fear of secularization <i>and</i> preferring central authority pushes them in this direction, I don't know...</p><p>But such law is really about trying to suppress one kind of religious freedom; only thinly disguised in "we want all religions to have a respect they deserve".</p><p><i>It doesn't really deal with religions</i>. There's no way around that. Religions are simply incompatible with each other. What one preaches <b>is</b> blasphemous to others. If such law was uphold as worded, no preaching would be possible.</p><p>No, this is only about limiting freedom of irreligious people. They are the only ones not protected by the same law (in case of religions it's a kind of MAD). "Understandable", in a way - irreligious folks scare most religions much more than adherents of other religions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also live in a place which has such law , and for quite some time ; about " hurting religious feelings " ( I kid you not , it 's worded like that ) The only cases when it was uphold dealt with , for all intents and purposes , our state religion .
Accidentally , it 's also Roman Catholicism ; perhaps their excessive fear of secularization and preferring central authority pushes them in this direction , I do n't know...But such law is really about trying to suppress one kind of religious freedom ; only thinly disguised in " we want all religions to have a respect they deserve " .It does n't really deal with religions .
There 's no way around that .
Religions are simply incompatible with each other .
What one preaches is blasphemous to others .
If such law was uphold as worded , no preaching would be possible.No , this is only about limiting freedom of irreligious people .
They are the only ones not protected by the same law ( in case of religions it 's a kind of MAD ) .
" Understandable " , in a way - irreligious folks scare most religions much more than adherents of other religions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also live in a place which has such law, and for quite some time; about "hurting religious feelings" (I kid you not, it's worded like that)The only cases when it was uphold dealt with, for all intents and purposes, our state religion.
Accidentally, it's also Roman Catholicism; perhaps their excessive fear of secularization and preferring central authority pushes them in this direction, I don't know...But such law is really about trying to suppress one kind of religious freedom; only thinly disguised in "we want all religions to have a respect they deserve".It doesn't really deal with religions.
There's no way around that.
Religions are simply incompatible with each other.
What one preaches is blasphemous to others.
If such law was uphold as worded, no preaching would be possible.No, this is only about limiting freedom of irreligious people.
They are the only ones not protected by the same law (in case of religions it's a kind of MAD).
"Understandable", in a way - irreligious folks scare most religions much more than adherents of other religions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617962</id>
	<title>This has to be...</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1262354760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most appropriate story for me to post in, if only for my sig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most appropriate story for me to post in , if only for my sig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most appropriate story for me to post in, if only for my sig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262353500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state.  They do not even allow  religion in schools in any form.  I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.</p></div><p>I am all for the separation of church and state. I believe we should start with Saudi Arabia and Israel. But why should you not teach religion in schools? Belief systems are knowledge are they not?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right , they have separation of church and state .
They do not even allow religion in schools in any form .
I do n't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.I am all for the separation of church and state .
I believe we should start with Saudi Arabia and Israel .
But why should you not teach religion in schools ?
Belief systems are knowledge are they not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state.
They do not even allow  religion in schools in any form.
I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.I am all for the separation of church and state.
I believe we should start with Saudi Arabia and Israel.
But why should you not teach religion in schools?
Belief systems are knowledge are they not?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623322</id>
	<title>Re:Another step backwards</title>
	<author>Pretzalzz</author>
	<datestamp>1262454540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, except in theaters, and near funerals, and at political rallies (unless you're in a "free speech zone" some distance away)...</p></div><p>Everyone has a right to free speech.  What protests at events are really trying to do is disrupt the organizers' free speech .   Otherwise they could stage their counter-rally anywhere, anytime.  You may say that the counter group doesn't normally have ready access to the people at the first group's event.  Well, tough shit.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to an audience.</p><p>Obviously it is a fine line, but to suggest that there should be nothing wrong with shouting over the designated speaker at an event because the shouter has free speech just doesn't hold water.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , except in theaters , and near funerals , and at political rallies ( unless you 're in a " free speech zone " some distance away ) ...Everyone has a right to free speech .
What protests at events are really trying to do is disrupt the organizers ' free speech .
Otherwise they could stage their counter-rally anywhere , anytime .
You may say that the counter group does n't normally have ready access to the people at the first group 's event .
Well , tough shit .
Freedom of speech does n't mean you are entitled to an audience.Obviously it is a fine line , but to suggest that there should be nothing wrong with shouting over the designated speaker at an event because the shouter has free speech just does n't hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, except in theaters, and near funerals, and at political rallies (unless you're in a "free speech zone" some distance away)...Everyone has a right to free speech.
What protests at events are really trying to do is disrupt the organizers' free speech .
Otherwise they could stage their counter-rally anywhere, anytime.
You may say that the counter group doesn't normally have ready access to the people at the first group's event.
Well, tough shit.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to an audience.Obviously it is a fine line, but to suggest that there should be nothing wrong with shouting over the designated speaker at an event because the shouter has free speech just doesn't hold water.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620102</id>
	<title>Re:Another step backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262374860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think religion is a dying bread. Sure its probably still got a good one hundred, two hundred years, maybe longer. What i think your seeing is religion trying to hold onto power, its claws will tear in to your rights and grip as long as it can, just like it always has, but the tides are turning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think religion is a dying bread .
Sure its probably still got a good one hundred , two hundred years , maybe longer .
What i think your seeing is religion trying to hold onto power , its claws will tear in to your rights and grip as long as it can , just like it always has , but the tides are turning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think religion is a dying bread.
Sure its probably still got a good one hundred, two hundred years, maybe longer.
What i think your seeing is religion trying to hold onto power, its claws will tear in to your rights and grip as long as it can, just like it always has, but the tides are turning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618164</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>Dartz-IRL</author>
	<datestamp>1262355780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty much the truth. Rather than do it properly and risk getting shat on by an irritated electorate who would vote 'No' for no reason other than to spite the Government, they just made bad law that'll never be enforced, except when somebody in the Cult of Scientology finds out about it, and seeks to abuse it.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty much the truth .
Rather than do it properly and risk getting shat on by an irritated electorate who would vote 'No ' for no reason other than to spite the Government , they just made bad law that 'll never be enforced , except when somebody in the Cult of Scientology finds out about it , and seeks to abuse it .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty much the truth.
Rather than do it properly and risk getting shat on by an irritated electorate who would vote 'No' for no reason other than to spite the Government, they just made bad law that'll never be enforced, except when somebody in the Cult of Scientology finds out about it, and seeks to abuse it.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620798</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1262428080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the spokesman for Monosetians I want to voice our OUTRAGE caused by your demand for a list.  Monosetians have few beliefs but asking for lists of things is shocking, abusive and insulting to our belief that all sets are of only one item.  It's an obvious attempt to intentionally cause outrage amongst all of our members.</p><p>I'll see you in court sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the spokesman for Monosetians I want to voice our OUTRAGE caused by your demand for a list .
Monosetians have few beliefs but asking for lists of things is shocking , abusive and insulting to our belief that all sets are of only one item .
It 's an obvious attempt to intentionally cause outrage amongst all of our members.I 'll see you in court sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the spokesman for Monosetians I want to voice our OUTRAGE caused by your demand for a list.
Monosetians have few beliefs but asking for lists of things is shocking, abusive and insulting to our belief that all sets are of only one item.
It's an obvious attempt to intentionally cause outrage amongst all of our members.I'll see you in court sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620716</id>
	<title>Oh no...the Islamists took over...</title>
	<author>MindPrison</author>
	<datestamp>1262426700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...yet another country.</p><p>These religious fanatics are DANGEROUS, and this is evidence how hard they lobby to get their Islamic laws into practice, today Ireland - tomorrow the ENTIRE UK.<br>If you don't face up to religion now, you'll have no vote in the end. Muslims are the fastest growing religion in the world, if you look at family numbers - the average muslim in eg. France, has 8 children per family, while the average european has 1.5. children per family. Where do YOU think this is going? They're islamists with a mission, Allah says they own the world, and anyone who disputes this are fair game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...yet another country.These religious fanatics are DANGEROUS , and this is evidence how hard they lobby to get their Islamic laws into practice , today Ireland - tomorrow the ENTIRE UK.If you do n't face up to religion now , you 'll have no vote in the end .
Muslims are the fastest growing religion in the world , if you look at family numbers - the average muslim in eg .
France , has 8 children per family , while the average european has 1.5. children per family .
Where do YOU think this is going ?
They 're islamists with a mission , Allah says they own the world , and anyone who disputes this are fair game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...yet another country.These religious fanatics are DANGEROUS, and this is evidence how hard they lobby to get their Islamic laws into practice, today Ireland - tomorrow the ENTIRE UK.If you don't face up to religion now, you'll have no vote in the end.
Muslims are the fastest growing religion in the world, if you look at family numbers - the average muslim in eg.
France, has 8 children per family, while the average european has 1.5. children per family.
Where do YOU think this is going?
They're islamists with a mission, Allah says they own the world, and anyone who disputes this are fair game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617836</id>
	<title>Re:yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262354040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Loosely: "Warriors of Fal." They call themselves the Republican Party of Ireland -- conservatives, similar to the American duality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Loosely : " Warriors of Fal .
" They call themselves the Republican Party of Ireland -- conservatives , similar to the American duality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loosely: "Warriors of Fal.
" They call themselves the Republican Party of Ireland -- conservatives, similar to the American duality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618952</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>one cup of coffee</author>
	<datestamp>1262361360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>very good post, I wish I had mod points</htmltext>
<tokenext>very good post , I wish I had mod points</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very good post, I wish I had mod points</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</id>
	<title>I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262351820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God damn it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God damn it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God damn it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619254</id>
	<title>Re:this will be fun</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262364480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they also ban the shift key on your computer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they also ban the shift key on your computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they also ban the shift key on your computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621684</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262442120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.</p>  </div><p>Please name one.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached." It won't happen, our natural desire to <i>know</i> which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.</p></div><p>First of all, you have no idea what scientific method is. Religion is constantly produce pseudo-knowledge with completely unscientific methods. Scientists never got any help from religion, only opposition and waste of time.<br>And about "not scientific questions". Simple, but adequate model of our knowledge would be following - circle that lies completely inside polygon. Circle is real world, polygon is our tool to describe this world, e.g. our language. Our tool is crude, but sufficient to describe anything in our site. But as a conseqence it leads to ability to describe something that is not even exists (points outside of circle but inside of polygon). And that-is-not-scientific-question explanation means you are just toying with words, talking about things that do not exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for , but that does n't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method can not be applied .
Please name one.Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say " Well !
These are not scientific questions , therefore they can not and will not be approached .
" It wo n't happen , our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.First of all , you have no idea what scientific method is .
Religion is constantly produce pseudo-knowledge with completely unscientific methods .
Scientists never got any help from religion , only opposition and waste of time.And about " not scientific questions " .
Simple , but adequate model of our knowledge would be following - circle that lies completely inside polygon .
Circle is real world , polygon is our tool to describe this world , e.g .
our language .
Our tool is crude , but sufficient to describe anything in our site .
But as a conseqence it leads to ability to describe something that is not even exists ( points outside of circle but inside of polygon ) .
And that-is-not-scientific-question explanation means you are just toying with words , talking about things that do not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.
Please name one.Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well!
These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached.
" It won't happen, our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.First of all, you have no idea what scientific method is.
Religion is constantly produce pseudo-knowledge with completely unscientific methods.
Scientists never got any help from religion, only opposition and waste of time.And about "not scientific questions".
Simple, but adequate model of our knowledge would be following - circle that lies completely inside polygon.
Circle is real world, polygon is our tool to describe this world, e.g.
our language.
Our tool is crude, but sufficient to describe anything in our site.
But as a conseqence it leads to ability to describe something that is not even exists (points outside of circle but inside of polygon).
And that-is-not-scientific-question explanation means you are just toying with words, talking about things that do not exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617912</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1262354460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.</p></div><p>Well, you do realize that by banning it, you're forcing YOUR beliefs on others.  No matter how you do it, someone is going to be upset and be forced to do something they don't want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.Well , you do realize that by banning it , you 're forcing YOUR beliefs on others .
No matter how you do it , someone is going to be upset and be forced to do something they do n't want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.Well, you do realize that by banning it, you're forcing YOUR beliefs on others.
No matter how you do it, someone is going to be upset and be forced to do something they don't want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618314</id>
	<title>Re:this will be fun</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1262356560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The funniest thing that could happen is that a religious person is brought up on charges.  It is almost impossible to create a sermon or whatever without being blasphemous to fragment of some religions.  Some Christian sermons I hear about are out right blasphemous to non-christian religions. At the very least, many mention jewish and muslim people in a very negative manner, and tend to disrespect Mohammed.  On a subtler note, there is quite a bit of blasphemy between the Christian sects.  if one says that the Trinity exists, that is blasphemous to Unitarians.  If one says the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus, that is blasphemous to religions who do not believe that.  If you force prayer in public places, that is blasphemous to anyone who takes the bible literary, in terms of Mathew 6:5-18, which, given the prevalence of pray in school in the US is few and far between.
<p>
So I would honestly hope this would cool down the rhetoric in Ireland, and for the so-called religious leaders to act like civilized persons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funniest thing that could happen is that a religious person is brought up on charges .
It is almost impossible to create a sermon or whatever without being blasphemous to fragment of some religions .
Some Christian sermons I hear about are out right blasphemous to non-christian religions .
At the very least , many mention jewish and muslim people in a very negative manner , and tend to disrespect Mohammed .
On a subtler note , there is quite a bit of blasphemy between the Christian sects .
if one says that the Trinity exists , that is blasphemous to Unitarians .
If one says the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus , that is blasphemous to religions who do not believe that .
If you force prayer in public places , that is blasphemous to anyone who takes the bible literary , in terms of Mathew 6 : 5-18 , which , given the prevalence of pray in school in the US is few and far between .
So I would honestly hope this would cool down the rhetoric in Ireland , and for the so-called religious leaders to act like civilized persons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funniest thing that could happen is that a religious person is brought up on charges.
It is almost impossible to create a sermon or whatever without being blasphemous to fragment of some religions.
Some Christian sermons I hear about are out right blasphemous to non-christian religions.
At the very least, many mention jewish and muslim people in a very negative manner, and tend to disrespect Mohammed.
On a subtler note, there is quite a bit of blasphemy between the Christian sects.
if one says that the Trinity exists, that is blasphemous to Unitarians.
If one says the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus, that is blasphemous to religions who do not believe that.
If you force prayer in public places, that is blasphemous to anyone who takes the bible literary, in terms of Mathew 6:5-18, which, given the prevalence of pray in school in the US is few and far between.
So I would honestly hope this would cool down the rhetoric in Ireland, and for the so-called religious leaders to act like civilized persons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484</id>
	<title>well god dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262351880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619012</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262361960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution</p></div><p>... or do nothing?</p><p>Politicians are supposed to be good at doing nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution... or do nothing ? Politicians are supposed to be good at doing nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution... or do nothing?Politicians are supposed to be good at doing nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619828</id>
	<title>Re:Catch me now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have modded you up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have modded you up : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have modded you up :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617676</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1262353260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted.</p></div></blockquote><p> That's what they all say... until someone is arrested for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted .
That 's what they all say... until someone is arrested for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted.
That's what they all say... until someone is arrested for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30679416</id>
	<title>They're from west of Wisconsin, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621132</id>
	<title>My favorite blasphemous statement.</title>
	<author>bkk\_diesel</author>
	<datestamp>1262433600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite blasphemous statement: "God is incredible."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite blasphemous statement : " God is incredible .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite blasphemous statement: "God is incredible.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619190</id>
	<title>Re:Attention, religious folks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262363820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not to be a grammar nazi or anything, but it's spelled "profit."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not to be a grammar nazi or anything , but it 's spelled " profit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to be a grammar nazi or anything, but it's spelled "profit.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622670</id>
	<title>They should be kicked out of the EU</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1262450940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are enough primitives there already, we don't need more who believe in unprovable supernatural beings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are enough primitives there already , we do n't need more who believe in unprovable supernatural beings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are enough primitives there already, we don't need more who believe in unprovable supernatural beings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624692</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1262461800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law will only be enforced against those who:</p><p>1) offend a religion the authorities favour, or,<br>2) are people the authorities want to get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law will only be enforced against those who : 1 ) offend a religion the authorities favour , or,2 ) are people the authorities want to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law will only be enforced against those who:1) offend a religion the authorities favour, or,2) are people the authorities want to get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618510</id>
	<title>Re:yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262357880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>have they considered how they ever intend to get this past Strasbourg?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have they considered how they ever intend to get this past Strasbourg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have they considered how they ever intend to get this past Strasbourg?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621338</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1262436600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yog Sa-Thoth is hung like a hampster... and the "Old Ones" suffer from prostate trouble!!! That why the call them the "Old Ones".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yog Sa-Thoth is hung like a hampster... and the " Old Ones " suffer from prostate trouble ! ! !
That why the call them the " Old Ones " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yog Sa-Thoth is hung like a hampster... and the "Old Ones" suffer from prostate trouble!!!
That why the call them the "Old Ones".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30626088</id>
	<title>Re:well god dammit</title>
	<author>michaelhood</author>
	<datestamp>1262427000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, as one of millions of athiests out there, I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public, and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason. There, fixed that.</p></div><p>I don't think anyone has the right to "not be offended," fortunately. God-given, creator-endowed, intrinsic (or however atheists would like it worded, not trying to flamebait) - or in any <i>once<i>-sensible country (US).</i></i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as one of millions of athiests out there , I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public , and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason .
There , fixed that.I do n't think anyone has the right to " not be offended , " fortunately .
God-given , creator-endowed , intrinsic ( or however atheists would like it worded , not trying to flamebait ) - or in any once-sensible country ( US ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as one of millions of athiests out there, I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public, and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason.
There, fixed that.I don't think anyone has the right to "not be offended," fortunately.
God-given, creator-endowed, intrinsic (or however atheists would like it worded, not trying to flamebait) - or in any once-sensible country (US).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618750</id>
	<title>Why they think it's ok to force their beliefs on..</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1262359620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple, Mr Photon.  They think it's okay because someone told them that someone told THEM that the authors of the Big Book said that the Invisible, Magical Man in the Sky (TM), said they were to ensure everyone agreed and believed in HIM, or HE would cause grave coincidences to come to pass.  So you see, that makes it perfectly acceptable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple , Mr Photon .
They think it 's okay because someone told them that someone told THEM that the authors of the Big Book said that the Invisible , Magical Man in the Sky ( TM ) , said they were to ensure everyone agreed and believed in HIM , or HE would cause grave coincidences to come to pass .
So you see , that makes it perfectly acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple, Mr Photon.
They think it's okay because someone told them that someone told THEM that the authors of the Big Book said that the Invisible, Magical Man in the Sky (TM), said they were to ensure everyone agreed and believed in HIM, or HE would cause grave coincidences to come to pass.
So you see, that makes it perfectly acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629930</id>
	<title>OMG!</title>
	<author>n3r0.m4dski11z</author>
	<datestamp>1262461560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its a blaspheme!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its a blaspheme !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its a blaspheme!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30628160</id>
	<title>Re:I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262441160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't get through to the original, Slugger has the Atheist Ireland's list of 25 blasphemies here:</p><p>http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/all-i-said-to-my-wife-was-that-piece-of-halibut-was-good-enough-for-jehovah/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't get through to the original , Slugger has the Atheist Ireland 's list of 25 blasphemies here : http : //sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/all-i-said-to-my-wife-was-that-piece-of-halibut-was-good-enough-for-jehovah/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't get through to the original, Slugger has the Atheist Ireland's list of 25 blasphemies here:http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/all-i-said-to-my-wife-was-that-piece-of-halibut-was-good-enough-for-jehovah/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623000</id>
	<title>Re:Attention, religious folks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no, Dirac is his prophet.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul\_Dirac#Religious\_views</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no , Dirac is his prophet.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul \ _Dirac # Religious \ _views</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no, Dirac is his prophet.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul\_Dirac#Religious\_views</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530</id>
	<title>Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>jtobin</author>
	<datestamp>1262352120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The law was just brought in so that the law matches the constitution (and this was acknowledged by those that passed it). It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted. The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution, and what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy? As well as that, when the law was passed the next referendum was for the Lisbon treaty, and the government wouldn't have wanted to hold the two referendums together (as it'd make the Christian Right more likely to vote, and so possibly sink the Lisbon referendum).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The law was just brought in so that the law matches the constitution ( and this was acknowledged by those that passed it ) .
It 's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted .
The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution , and what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy ?
As well as that , when the law was passed the next referendum was for the Lisbon treaty , and the government would n't have wanted to hold the two referendums together ( as it 'd make the Christian Right more likely to vote , and so possibly sink the Lisbon referendum ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law was just brought in so that the law matches the constitution (and this was acknowledged by those that passed it).
It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted.
The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution, and what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy?
As well as that, when the law was passed the next referendum was for the Lisbon treaty, and the government wouldn't have wanted to hold the two referendums together (as it'd make the Christian Right more likely to vote, and so possibly sink the Lisbon referendum).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624496</id>
	<title>Re:This is the death knell of Catholicism in Irela</title>
	<author>walter\_f</author>
	<datestamp>1262460660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"child abuse by Catholic priests and seminarians and the resignations of four bishops as a result."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>And, as far as I know, no law enforcement at all in these hundreds, maybe thousands of cases, on the state's side.</p><p>Rape (the victims may be infants, minors or grown-ups) is a criminal offense in all civilized countries.<br>Obviously and unfortunately, this does not apply to Ireland, at least not to all rapists alike.</p><p>"This is the death knell of Catholicism in Ireland"<br>Instead of "this is", I'd rather read "this should be" here. But I won't hold my breath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" child abuse by Catholic priests and seminarians and the resignations of four bishops as a result .
" ...And , as far as I know , no law enforcement at all in these hundreds , maybe thousands of cases , on the state 's side.Rape ( the victims may be infants , minors or grown-ups ) is a criminal offense in all civilized countries.Obviously and unfortunately , this does not apply to Ireland , at least not to all rapists alike .
" This is the death knell of Catholicism in Ireland " Instead of " this is " , I 'd rather read " this should be " here .
But I wo n't hold my breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"child abuse by Catholic priests and seminarians and the resignations of four bishops as a result.
" ...And, as far as I know, no law enforcement at all in these hundreds, maybe thousands of cases, on the state's side.Rape (the victims may be infants, minors or grown-ups) is a criminal offense in all civilized countries.Obviously and unfortunately, this does not apply to Ireland, at least not to all rapists alike.
"This is the death knell of Catholicism in Ireland"Instead of "this is", I'd rather read "this should be" here.
But I won't hold my breath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30637320</id>
	<title>Re:Proof of god's non-existence</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1262538000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?</i></p><p><i>The only possible explanation is that they are not sure at all that this deity they proclaim to believe in actually exists. </i></p><p>Why do you dismiss, "because such claims may cause other 'believers' to question their assumptions and that threatens the power base of the self-appointed religious elite"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , then , do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned ? The only possible explanation is that they are not sure at all that this deity they proclaim to believe in actually exists .
Why do you dismiss , " because such claims may cause other 'believers ' to question their assumptions and that threatens the power base of the self-appointed religious elite " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?The only possible explanation is that they are not sure at all that this deity they proclaim to believe in actually exists.
Why do you dismiss, "because such claims may cause other 'believers' to question their assumptions and that threatens the power base of the self-appointed religious elite"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622918</id>
	<title>The law is to protect the Church</title>
	<author>1mck</author>
	<datestamp>1262452200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all the people coming forward about the abuses and rapes that the Church has perpetrated, to me this law is to protect the Church. The people coming forward were getting too close to the higher ups, and people in high positions were being implicated in this. Now, they can come into your home in Ireland for anything they want under the pretense of this law. I think their tourism is going to take a hit on this one, eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the people coming forward about the abuses and rapes that the Church has perpetrated , to me this law is to protect the Church .
The people coming forward were getting too close to the higher ups , and people in high positions were being implicated in this .
Now , they can come into your home in Ireland for anything they want under the pretense of this law .
I think their tourism is going to take a hit on this one , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the people coming forward about the abuses and rapes that the Church has perpetrated, to me this law is to protect the Church.
The people coming forward were getting too close to the higher ups, and people in high positions were being implicated in this.
Now, they can come into your home in Ireland for anything they want under the pretense of this law.
I think their tourism is going to take a hit on this one, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619028</id>
	<title>Re:Catch me now!</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1262362140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>fuck catholics, fuck protestants, fuck jews, fuck muslims</p></div>

</blockquote><p>I already have!  The protestants are the worst lays.  They keep complaining.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck catholics , fuck protestants , fuck jews , fuck muslims I already have !
The protestants are the worst lays .
They keep complaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck catholics, fuck protestants, fuck jews, fuck muslims

I already have!
The protestants are the worst lays.
They keep complaining.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619002</id>
	<title>Re:this will be fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262361900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not a phenomenon unique to Ireland. A name for one form of it is "The Streisand Effect" which all slashdot regulars will be familiar with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a phenomenon unique to Ireland .
A name for one form of it is " The Streisand Effect " which all slashdot regulars will be familiar with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a phenomenon unique to Ireland.
A name for one form of it is "The Streisand Effect" which all slashdot regulars will be familiar with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624640</id>
	<title>coral cache mirror for the blasphemous article</title>
	<author>fedxone-v86</author>
	<datestamp>1262461500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks editors for helping take down the blasphemy.ie website! For everyone interested in reading the quotations here's the coral cache link: <br> <a href="http://blasphemy.ie.nyud.net/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/" title="nyud.net" rel="nofollow">http://blasphemy.ie.nyud.net/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/</a> [nyud.net]

</p><p>The first quotes are from Jesus Christ himself.

</p><p>And btw, if you're planning on building a high traffic website don't use Wordpress...<br>
From the blasphemy.ie source:
</p><p> <tt>
&lt;meta name="generator" content="WordPress 2.7.1"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;
</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks editors for helping take down the blasphemy.ie website !
For everyone interested in reading the quotations here 's the coral cache link : http : //blasphemy.ie.nyud.net/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/ [ nyud.net ] The first quotes are from Jesus Christ himself .
And btw , if you 're planning on building a high traffic website do n't use Wordpress.. . From the blasphemy.ie source : / &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks editors for helping take down the blasphemy.ie website!
For everyone interested in reading the quotations here's the coral cache link:  http://blasphemy.ie.nyud.net/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/ [nyud.net]

The first quotes are from Jesus Christ himself.
And btw, if you're planning on building a high traffic website don't use Wordpress...
From the blasphemy.ie source:
 
 /&gt;
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622492</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262449800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those questions are philosophical in nature, and thus answerable in a rational fashion. The scientific method isn't the only way to gain veritable insight: mathematics doesn't use experiments, for example. Your straw man is shoddy at best, and would only distract extremists.</p><p>Religion, on the other hand, is a corruption of philosophy: its prophet is a bully who uses fairy tales to make you believe in what he says. Socrates arrived to the knowledge that any moral truth, once explained, would be so obvious no one could deny it. Religion takes that rationality out of ethics, replaces it with superstition and teaches you not to question it.</p><p>Only religion says "Well! I don't know why you would want to love your neighbor! It must be because God wants it!" and expects you to throw up your hands and accept that answer. Religion does not reason, it provides half-baked solutions to very important problems and then is <b>perfectly happy</b> of being <b>wrong</b>. <b>Religion is exactly what you accuse atheism of being</b>.</p><p>Yes, religion is a mild schizophrenia. With any luck, it will disappear with <b>true</b> education --which <b>actually</b> encourages <b>discourse</b>-- not religious bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those questions are philosophical in nature , and thus answerable in a rational fashion .
The scientific method is n't the only way to gain veritable insight : mathematics does n't use experiments , for example .
Your straw man is shoddy at best , and would only distract extremists.Religion , on the other hand , is a corruption of philosophy : its prophet is a bully who uses fairy tales to make you believe in what he says .
Socrates arrived to the knowledge that any moral truth , once explained , would be so obvious no one could deny it .
Religion takes that rationality out of ethics , replaces it with superstition and teaches you not to question it.Only religion says " Well !
I do n't know why you would want to love your neighbor !
It must be because God wants it !
" and expects you to throw up your hands and accept that answer .
Religion does not reason , it provides half-baked solutions to very important problems and then is perfectly happy of being wrong .
Religion is exactly what you accuse atheism of being.Yes , religion is a mild schizophrenia .
With any luck , it will disappear with true education --which actually encourages discourse-- not religious bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those questions are philosophical in nature, and thus answerable in a rational fashion.
The scientific method isn't the only way to gain veritable insight: mathematics doesn't use experiments, for example.
Your straw man is shoddy at best, and would only distract extremists.Religion, on the other hand, is a corruption of philosophy: its prophet is a bully who uses fairy tales to make you believe in what he says.
Socrates arrived to the knowledge that any moral truth, once explained, would be so obvious no one could deny it.
Religion takes that rationality out of ethics, replaces it with superstition and teaches you not to question it.Only religion says "Well!
I don't know why you would want to love your neighbor!
It must be because God wants it!
" and expects you to throw up your hands and accept that answer.
Religion does not reason, it provides half-baked solutions to very important problems and then is perfectly happy of being wrong.
Religion is exactly what you accuse atheism of being.Yes, religion is a mild schizophrenia.
With any luck, it will disappear with true education --which actually encourages discourse-- not religious bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617640</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1262353020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what politician wants to seem like they support <b>free expression</b>?</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what politician wants to seem like they support free expression ? There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what politician wants to seem like they support free expression?There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623986</id>
	<title>Re:well god dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and you also eternally branded yourself as retarded by uttering the phrase "blasphemy to reason."</p><p>PRAISE SCIENCE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and you also eternally branded yourself as retarded by uttering the phrase " blasphemy to reason .
" PRAISE SCIENCE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and you also eternally branded yourself as retarded by uttering the phrase "blasphemy to reason.
"PRAISE SCIENCE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</id>
	<title>This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262352360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state.  They do not even allow  religion in schools in any form.  I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right , they have separation of church and state .
They do not even allow religion in schools in any form .
I do n't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state.
They do not even allow  religion in schools in any form.
I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619782</id>
	<title>Re:well god dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262370960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding me</p></div><p>thats is exactly what I thought!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)    "jesus fucking christ, wtf"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding methats is exactly what I thought !
; ) " jesus fucking christ , wtf "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding methats is exactly what I thought!
;)    "jesus fucking christ, wtf"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621826</id>
	<title>Re:I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262443560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, can you point me to when they held a referendum on this issue, and found out what the majority thought on the issue? AFAIK, they didn't. Indeed, that's the problem - they could have held a referendum to change the constitution, if they were really worried about that issue, but they didn't.</p><p><i>The only reason why the law exists is because the majority elected officials</i></p><p>Ah, the back pedaling - so it's not the majority, but the majority of elected officials.</p><p><i>Now if they were elected for those views, then they will be elected again, but if not, then they will be replaced and there will be an opportunity for the laws to be changed.</i></p><p>In most cases, people aren't elected for one given issue, because there are a vast range of different issues that people care about. If we have three candidates, each of which have at least one view that I disagree with, who exactly do I vote for to indicate my preferences on all issues?</p><p><i>I will not yell and scream and carry on that I disagree with it; I'll just respect the views of others and hope that majority will eventually see how this law cannot work in the modern world.</i></p><p>So you don't ever criticise any laws, no matter how mad they are, right? Do you post this to every Slashdot story about a stupid law? It's funny how this argument never applies to supporters of the law - before it was passed, they didn't say "Well blasphemy is legal, which is therefore what the majortity want, so therefore we should shut up and stop campaigning for a law"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , can you point me to when they held a referendum on this issue , and found out what the majority thought on the issue ?
AFAIK , they did n't .
Indeed , that 's the problem - they could have held a referendum to change the constitution , if they were really worried about that issue , but they did n't.The only reason why the law exists is because the majority elected officialsAh , the back pedaling - so it 's not the majority , but the majority of elected officials.Now if they were elected for those views , then they will be elected again , but if not , then they will be replaced and there will be an opportunity for the laws to be changed.In most cases , people are n't elected for one given issue , because there are a vast range of different issues that people care about .
If we have three candidates , each of which have at least one view that I disagree with , who exactly do I vote for to indicate my preferences on all issues ? I will not yell and scream and carry on that I disagree with it ; I 'll just respect the views of others and hope that majority will eventually see how this law can not work in the modern world.So you do n't ever criticise any laws , no matter how mad they are , right ?
Do you post this to every Slashdot story about a stupid law ?
It 's funny how this argument never applies to supporters of the law - before it was passed , they did n't say " Well blasphemy is legal , which is therefore what the majortity want , so therefore we should shut up and stop campaigning for a law " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, can you point me to when they held a referendum on this issue, and found out what the majority thought on the issue?
AFAIK, they didn't.
Indeed, that's the problem - they could have held a referendum to change the constitution, if they were really worried about that issue, but they didn't.The only reason why the law exists is because the majority elected officialsAh, the back pedaling - so it's not the majority, but the majority of elected officials.Now if they were elected for those views, then they will be elected again, but if not, then they will be replaced and there will be an opportunity for the laws to be changed.In most cases, people aren't elected for one given issue, because there are a vast range of different issues that people care about.
If we have three candidates, each of which have at least one view that I disagree with, who exactly do I vote for to indicate my preferences on all issues?I will not yell and scream and carry on that I disagree with it; I'll just respect the views of others and hope that majority will eventually see how this law cannot work in the modern world.So you don't ever criticise any laws, no matter how mad they are, right?
Do you post this to every Slashdot story about a stupid law?
It's funny how this argument never applies to supporters of the law - before it was passed, they didn't say "Well blasphemy is legal, which is therefore what the majortity want, so therefore we should shut up and stop campaigning for a law"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617528</id>
	<title>This should be good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262352120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, an article about a law against blasphemy. I'm guessing we'll see at least 100 posts of blasphemy in this one article now. I'm going to get out the popcorn. This should be fun. Try and be inventive!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , an article about a law against blasphemy .
I 'm guessing we 'll see at least 100 posts of blasphemy in this one article now .
I 'm going to get out the popcorn .
This should be fun .
Try and be inventive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, an article about a law against blasphemy.
I'm guessing we'll see at least 100 posts of blasphemy in this one article now.
I'm going to get out the popcorn.
This should be fun.
Try and be inventive!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618972</id>
	<title>Re:well god dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262361600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perfect</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perfect</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perfect</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617514</id>
	<title>Atheists Unite... as a religion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262352060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble, a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion, register with the government (or submit whatever paperwork is necessary to make their beliefs protected under this law), and then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell, since it's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely shouldn't be allowed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble , a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion , register with the government ( or submit whatever paperwork is necessary to make their beliefs protected under this law ) , and then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell , since it 's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely should n't be allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble, a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion, register with the government (or submit whatever paperwork is necessary to make their beliefs protected under this law), and then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell, since it's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely shouldn't be allowed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572</id>
	<title>Another step backwards</title>
	<author>fyngyrz</author>
	<datestamp>1262352420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and Ireland joins other butt-ignorant countries like Saudi Arabia, while here in the USA, freedom of speech reigns paramount.
</p><p>
Well, except in theaters, and near funerals, and at political rallies (unless you're in a "free speech zone" some distance away)...
</p><p>
And some art, well, we just can't have people looking at (or even creating) that...
</p><p>
It'd be nice if congress fixed these things. But of course, we have to wait for them to finish their prayers before they can get started. Oh, and the blessing. By a preacher paid for with tax money.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and Ireland joins other butt-ignorant countries like Saudi Arabia , while here in the USA , freedom of speech reigns paramount .
Well , except in theaters , and near funerals , and at political rallies ( unless you 're in a " free speech zone " some distance away ) .. . And some art , well , we just ca n't have people looking at ( or even creating ) that.. . It 'd be nice if congress fixed these things .
But of course , we have to wait for them to finish their prayers before they can get started .
Oh , and the blessing .
By a preacher paid for with tax money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and Ireland joins other butt-ignorant countries like Saudi Arabia, while here in the USA, freedom of speech reigns paramount.
Well, except in theaters, and near funerals, and at political rallies (unless you're in a "free speech zone" some distance away)...

And some art, well, we just can't have people looking at (or even creating) that...

It'd be nice if congress fixed these things.
But of course, we have to wait for them to finish their prayers before they can get started.
Oh, and the blessing.
By a preacher paid for with tax money.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621376</id>
	<title>Re:Another step backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262437140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you have 'In God we Trust' printed on your fiat currency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you have 'In God we Trust ' printed on your fiat currency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you have 'In God we Trust' printed on your fiat currency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621066</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262432760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion. Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect.</p></div><p>No. I just had to simplify it for the comment. Else I could write a whole book about the topic.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I completely agree about the desire to ask questions. Even questions that &ldquo;can&rsquo;t be asked&rdquo;. That&rsquo;s our ultimate power and possibly the single most important thing we have.<br>Interestingly, I tried to think this to the end (, like I always do). And it results in this:<br>Our whole world is a endless graph of cause-and-effect relationships. We can measure the &ldquo;now&rdquo;. And know past states. But we can only go back so far. We now are at the big bang. But that does not stop us from asking what the big bang came from?. And it&rsquo;s of course a valid question. Just as asking questions about everything that we do not understand, is a valid question. And we make up for the gaps in knowledge about recent events, by guessing, and creating rules of nature where everything fits in. That&rsquo;s how far we came, nowadays. And as you said, we weren&rsquo;t that lucky in earlier days.<br>Yes the question of the ultimate cause, remains.</p><p>That is what the idea of a &ldquo;god&rdquo; was created for. It&rsquo;s a ultimate source of everything.<br>Its problem is, that it does not actually fix anything, because you can still ask, where god came from, and where he exists in.<br>That&rsquo;s why it is &ldquo;forbidden&rdquo; to ask that question. It&rsquo;s basically willful ignorance, to be able to cope with that question, that would otherwise have the power to drive us crazy.<br>This big importance of that question actually shows a very high intelligence.</p><p>We scientist are not better off. Because we&rsquo;re not better at it. Because we also don&rsquo;t know the ultimate cause. And just as much can&rsquo;t handle that gap. Our minds are wired in a way, that if our model is not consistent, everything breaks down. (That&rsquo;s those people you see in mental homes, who basically became vegetables, or zombies.)<br>We scientists just usually choose, just not to think about it at all. It&rsquo;s also ignorance by choice. Protective ignorance.</p><p>But let&rsquo;s move on to why I did not say that this all was a bad thing:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School? Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?</p></div><p>No, no, no. It seems I did not work hard enough to make it clear, that I do <em>not</em> nee religious people as worse humans anymore! I&rsquo;m really sorry for not making that clear enough.</p><p>Also, I noticed that many people think one means &ldquo;batshit insane drooling retard, and all around lower-value human&rdquo; when they hear the word &ldquo;schizophrenia&rdquo;. But In fact, there is a stepless gradient between normal workarounds of the internal model and full-scale schizophrenia-based insanity. And religion is just a sliight bit over the normal amount. Where it starts to be generally rather bad. But normally far from completely living in your own crazy reality.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I do not want anyone to &ldquo;see the light&rdquo;. In fact, my philosophy is not that of devoting my life to the advantage of others. And I don&rsquo;t care much what others think of me and my ideas.<br>But I can&rsquo;t stand there and ignore people being in pain or desperate situations. Things where you know, that you happen to know a simple and elegant solution that could make their whole life so much better. Because I was in that very situation so often, and wished someone would come and be there for me for once. I would have been very thankful and given so much more back...<br>I don&rsquo;t expect anything. But it doesn&rsquo;t hurt to try, does it?</p><p>Also, this has nothing to do with reason, as reason and this basically are mutually exclusive. It&rsquo;s an emotional, psychological thing. Mind hacking. (&ldquo;For great justice&rdquo;?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I ask people about their lives. And strangely, nearly everyone instantly opens his heart to me. Especially women. (Yes, I can tell you about some failed tries to get a girlfriend.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>So if I notice something that raises their anger, where you can see the protective mechanism hiding something (big), I use my knowledge of how to tackle this, to help them &ldquo;hack that IDS&rdquo; and face the thing. From then on, it usually is a nearly self-running &ldquo;ah-ha&rdquo; learning process, where a person can even turn 180 degrees around on some views, and know that this is &ldquo;the real me&rdquo;. A bit of self-fulfilling prophecy sprinkled on top, and tadaaa...<br>I had girls realizing that the only reason they acted like idiots their whole life, was because their father always called them stupid. While they were actually stunningly intelligent. Changed their whole approach to life.<br>I&rsquo;m sorry if you think it&rsquo;s somehow bad that this makes me happy...</p><p>(Yes, this is the simplified, very condensed form. So don&rsquo;t nail me on it being too simple. It&rsquo;s still the basic mechanism, though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion .
Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect.No .
I just had to simplify it for the comment .
Else I could write a whole book about the topic .
: ) I completely agree about the desire to ask questions .
Even questions that    can    t be asked    .
That    s our ultimate power and possibly the single most important thing we have.Interestingly , I tried to think this to the end ( , like I always do ) .
And it results in this : Our whole world is a endless graph of cause-and-effect relationships .
We can measure the    now    .
And know past states .
But we can only go back so far .
We now are at the big bang .
But that does not stop us from asking what the big bang came from ? .
And it    s of course a valid question .
Just as asking questions about everything that we do not understand , is a valid question .
And we make up for the gaps in knowledge about recent events , by guessing , and creating rules of nature where everything fits in .
That    s how far we came , nowadays .
And as you said , we weren    t that lucky in earlier days.Yes the question of the ultimate cause , remains.That is what the idea of a    god    was created for .
It    s a ultimate source of everything.Its problem is , that it does not actually fix anything , because you can still ask , where god came from , and where he exists in.That    s why it is    forbidden    to ask that question .
It    s basically willful ignorance , to be able to cope with that question , that would otherwise have the power to drive us crazy.This big importance of that question actually shows a very high intelligence.We scientist are not better off .
Because we    re not better at it .
Because we also don    t know the ultimate cause .
And just as much can    t handle that gap .
Our minds are wired in a way , that if our model is not consistent , everything breaks down .
( That    s those people you see in mental homes , who basically became vegetables , or zombies .
) We scientists just usually choose , just not to think about it at all .
It    s also ignorance by choice .
Protective ignorance.But let    s move on to why I did not say that this all was a bad thing : Do you suppose this approach would work at say , the Harvard Divinity School ?
Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins , simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up ? No , no , no .
It seems I did not work hard enough to make it clear , that I do not nee religious people as worse humans anymore !
I    m really sorry for not making that clear enough.Also , I noticed that many people think one means    batshit insane drooling retard , and all around lower-value human    when they hear the word    schizophrenia    .
But In fact , there is a stepless gradient between normal workarounds of the internal model and full-scale schizophrenia-based insanity .
And religion is just a sliight bit over the normal amount .
Where it starts to be generally rather bad .
But normally far from completely living in your own crazy reality .
: ) I do not want anyone to    see the light    .
In fact , my philosophy is not that of devoting my life to the advantage of others .
And I don    t care much what others think of me and my ideas.But I can    t stand there and ignore people being in pain or desperate situations .
Things where you know , that you happen to know a simple and elegant solution that could make their whole life so much better .
Because I was in that very situation so often , and wished someone would come and be there for me for once .
I would have been very thankful and given so much more back...I don    t expect anything .
But it doesn    t hurt to try , does it ? Also , this has nothing to do with reason , as reason and this basically are mutually exclusive .
It    s an emotional , psychological thing .
Mind hacking .
(    For great justice    ?
; ) I ask people about their lives .
And strangely , nearly everyone instantly opens his heart to me .
Especially women .
( Yes , I can tell you about some failed tries to get a girlfriend .
; ) So if I notice something that raises their anger , where you can see the protective mechanism hiding something ( big ) , I use my knowledge of how to tackle this , to help them    hack that IDS    and face the thing .
From then on , it usually is a nearly self-running    ah-ha    learning process , where a person can even turn 180 degrees around on some views , and know that this is    the real me    .
A bit of self-fulfilling prophecy sprinkled on top , and tadaaa...I had girls realizing that the only reason they acted like idiots their whole life , was because their father always called them stupid .
While they were actually stunningly intelligent .
Changed their whole approach to life.I    m sorry if you think it    s somehow bad that this makes me happy... ( Yes , this is the simplified , very condensed form .
So don    t nail me on it being too simple .
It    s still the basic mechanism , though .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion.
Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect.No.
I just had to simplify it for the comment.
Else I could write a whole book about the topic.
:)I completely agree about the desire to ask questions.
Even questions that “can’t be asked”.
That’s our ultimate power and possibly the single most important thing we have.Interestingly, I tried to think this to the end (, like I always do).
And it results in this:Our whole world is a endless graph of cause-and-effect relationships.
We can measure the “now”.
And know past states.
But we can only go back so far.
We now are at the big bang.
But that does not stop us from asking what the big bang came from?.
And it’s of course a valid question.
Just as asking questions about everything that we do not understand, is a valid question.
And we make up for the gaps in knowledge about recent events, by guessing, and creating rules of nature where everything fits in.
That’s how far we came, nowadays.
And as you said, we weren’t that lucky in earlier days.Yes the question of the ultimate cause, remains.That is what the idea of a “god” was created for.
It’s a ultimate source of everything.Its problem is, that it does not actually fix anything, because you can still ask, where god came from, and where he exists in.That’s why it is “forbidden” to ask that question.
It’s basically willful ignorance, to be able to cope with that question, that would otherwise have the power to drive us crazy.This big importance of that question actually shows a very high intelligence.We scientist are not better off.
Because we’re not better at it.
Because we also don’t know the ultimate cause.
And just as much can’t handle that gap.
Our minds are wired in a way, that if our model is not consistent, everything breaks down.
(That’s those people you see in mental homes, who basically became vegetables, or zombies.
)We scientists just usually choose, just not to think about it at all.
It’s also ignorance by choice.
Protective ignorance.But let’s move on to why I did not say that this all was a bad thing:Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School?
Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?No, no, no.
It seems I did not work hard enough to make it clear, that I do not nee religious people as worse humans anymore!
I’m really sorry for not making that clear enough.Also, I noticed that many people think one means “batshit insane drooling retard, and all around lower-value human” when they hear the word “schizophrenia”.
But In fact, there is a stepless gradient between normal workarounds of the internal model and full-scale schizophrenia-based insanity.
And religion is just a sliight bit over the normal amount.
Where it starts to be generally rather bad.
But normally far from completely living in your own crazy reality.
:)I do not want anyone to “see the light”.
In fact, my philosophy is not that of devoting my life to the advantage of others.
And I don’t care much what others think of me and my ideas.But I can’t stand there and ignore people being in pain or desperate situations.
Things where you know, that you happen to know a simple and elegant solution that could make their whole life so much better.
Because I was in that very situation so often, and wished someone would come and be there for me for once.
I would have been very thankful and given so much more back...I don’t expect anything.
But it doesn’t hurt to try, does it?Also, this has nothing to do with reason, as reason and this basically are mutually exclusive.
It’s an emotional, psychological thing.
Mind hacking.
(“For great justice”?
;)I ask people about their lives.
And strangely, nearly everyone instantly opens his heart to me.
Especially women.
(Yes, I can tell you about some failed tries to get a girlfriend.
;)So if I notice something that raises their anger, where you can see the protective mechanism hiding something (big), I use my knowledge of how to tackle this, to help them “hack that IDS” and face the thing.
From then on, it usually is a nearly self-running “ah-ha” learning process, where a person can even turn 180 degrees around on some views, and know that this is “the real me”.
A bit of self-fulfilling prophecy sprinkled on top, and tadaaa...I had girls realizing that the only reason they acted like idiots their whole life, was because their father always called them stupid.
While they were actually stunningly intelligent.
Changed their whole approach to life.I’m sorry if you think it’s somehow bad that this makes me happy...(Yes, this is the simplified, very condensed form.
So don’t nail me on it being too simple.
It’s still the basic mechanism, though.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618214</id>
	<title>Re:this will be fun</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1262356020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm looking forward to the entertainment. Religion vs Religion, politicians getting sued, newspapers "publishing matter that is insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion". With all the Protestants going to hell for not receiving communion, it should be an interesting year in Ireland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to the entertainment .
Religion vs Religion , politicians getting sued , newspapers " publishing matter that is insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion " .
With all the Protestants going to hell for not receiving communion , it should be an interesting year in Ireland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to the entertainment.
Religion vs Religion, politicians getting sued, newspapers "publishing matter that is insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion".
With all the Protestants going to hell for not receiving communion, it should be an interesting year in Ireland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621386</id>
	<title>Re:Another step backwards</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1262437320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and Ireland joins other butt-ignorant countries like Saudi Arabia, while here in the USA, freedom of speech reigns paramount.</p></div><p>Please do not think this represents the will of the people of Ireland. The government hasn't represented the majority for quite a while.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and Ireland joins other butt-ignorant countries like Saudi Arabia , while here in the USA , freedom of speech reigns paramount.Please do not think this represents the will of the people of Ireland .
The government has n't represented the majority for quite a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and Ireland joins other butt-ignorant countries like Saudi Arabia, while here in the USA, freedom of speech reigns paramount.Please do not think this represents the will of the people of Ireland.
The government hasn't represented the majority for quite a while.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623868</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not entirely true. I am French. To be more precise, I am Alsatian and there are many exceptions to the principle of separation of church and state in that region. The biggest one are:<br>1. Christian religion is taught in school (the parents have to ask a dispensation to the prefecture if they do not want their children to attend this class).<br>2. Priests are considered as public officers and therefore are paid by the state. There are no specific taxes for this which means that you pay for it even if you are not Christian.<br>These exceptions have historical reasons but still... The fact that the French government is making a fuss about whether the burka should be banned or not whereas they do not deal with this is highly hypocritical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not entirely true .
I am French .
To be more precise , I am Alsatian and there are many exceptions to the principle of separation of church and state in that region .
The biggest one are : 1 .
Christian religion is taught in school ( the parents have to ask a dispensation to the prefecture if they do not want their children to attend this class ) .2 .
Priests are considered as public officers and therefore are paid by the state .
There are no specific taxes for this which means that you pay for it even if you are not Christian.These exceptions have historical reasons but still... The fact that the French government is making a fuss about whether the burka should be banned or not whereas they do not deal with this is highly hypocritical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not entirely true.
I am French.
To be more precise, I am Alsatian and there are many exceptions to the principle of separation of church and state in that region.
The biggest one are:1.
Christian religion is taught in school (the parents have to ask a dispensation to the prefecture if they do not want their children to attend this class).2.
Priests are considered as public officers and therefore are paid by the state.
There are no specific taxes for this which means that you pay for it even if you are not Christian.These exceptions have historical reasons but still... The fact that the French government is making a fuss about whether the burka should be banned or not whereas they do not deal with this is highly hypocritical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621912</id>
	<title>As of this point in time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262444580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>111 posts needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>111 posts needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>111 posts needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617860</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262354220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how everyone forgets the US from the beginning separated church and state. In fact blasphemy is protected by law. France restricts the use of foreign words on signs but the US has no such restrictions. I often hear the US attacked but few acknowledge that we rank high up in personal freedoms even among first world countries. We get a lot of things wrong but many things we get right as well. Odd that Ireland passed an anti blasphemy law given how much church attendance has fallen. The church has far too much influence here but far less than they seem to in Ireland. A stunning country but they do need to rethink church influence in government. Freedom of speech should always trump church wishes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how everyone forgets the US from the beginning separated church and state .
In fact blasphemy is protected by law .
France restricts the use of foreign words on signs but the US has no such restrictions .
I often hear the US attacked but few acknowledge that we rank high up in personal freedoms even among first world countries .
We get a lot of things wrong but many things we get right as well .
Odd that Ireland passed an anti blasphemy law given how much church attendance has fallen .
The church has far too much influence here but far less than they seem to in Ireland .
A stunning country but they do need to rethink church influence in government .
Freedom of speech should always trump church wishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how everyone forgets the US from the beginning separated church and state.
In fact blasphemy is protected by law.
France restricts the use of foreign words on signs but the US has no such restrictions.
I often hear the US attacked but few acknowledge that we rank high up in personal freedoms even among first world countries.
We get a lot of things wrong but many things we get right as well.
Odd that Ireland passed an anti blasphemy law given how much church attendance has fallen.
The church has far too much influence here but far less than they seem to in Ireland.
A stunning country but they do need to rethink church influence in government.
Freedom of speech should always trump church wishes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620342</id>
	<title>The first ones to use this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262464980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will be the 'church' of scientology</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will be the 'church ' of scientology</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will be the 'church' of scientology</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622026</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1262445600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied</i> <br> <br>No the parent had it right. In all fairness, the best answer to this question is "we do NOT know even if we desire to" and not "my sky faery did it " or "I will reach nirvana after 19th reincarnation" or even "he died for our sins". All those answer are without evidence and are tinted by the cultural background of the person saying them. Shift them to another background and they would change it. Religion is indeed a cultural delusion. <br> <br> <i>Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins,</i> <br> <br>Not all religious person are ignorant, but indeed religiosity has been correlated to the reverse of education.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that does n't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method can not be applied No the parent had it right .
In all fairness , the best answer to this question is " we do NOT know even if we desire to " and not " my sky faery did it " or " I will reach nirvana after 19th reincarnation " or even " he died for our sins " .
All those answer are without evidence and are tinted by the cultural background of the person saying them .
Shift them to another background and they would change it .
Religion is indeed a cultural delusion .
Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins , Not all religious person are ignorant , but indeed religiosity has been correlated to the reverse of education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied  No the parent had it right.
In all fairness, the best answer to this question is "we do NOT know even if we desire to" and not "my sky faery did it " or "I will reach nirvana after 19th reincarnation" or even "he died for our sins".
All those answer are without evidence and are tinted by the cultural background of the person saying them.
Shift them to another background and they would change it.
Religion is indeed a cultural delusion.
Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins,  Not all religious person are ignorant, but indeed religiosity has been correlated to the reverse of education.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621162</id>
	<title>No Pretence Needed</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262433960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>          No notion of equality exists in this blasphemy business. Does blasphemy against Islam count? How about blasphemy against Scientology? Anyone going to jail for suggesting that L. Ron Hubbard was a perverted idiot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No notion of equality exists in this blasphemy business .
Does blasphemy against Islam count ?
How about blasphemy against Scientology ?
Anyone going to jail for suggesting that L. Ron Hubbard was a perverted idiot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>          No notion of equality exists in this blasphemy business.
Does blasphemy against Islam count?
How about blasphemy against Scientology?
Anyone going to jail for suggesting that L. Ron Hubbard was a perverted idiot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617964</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262354760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Religious beliefs are purely faith based. IE; humankind came from Adam and Eve... A Big Flood... This crap does not belong in our schools. They are much like fairy tales.<br>However, what should belong in our schools is how and when these mythological gods and/or beliefs came to be. Learning the history of these myths will certainly make individuals more aware of how outrageous all these claims are. Education is the key. Not story telling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religious beliefs are purely faith based .
IE ; humankind came from Adam and Eve... A Big Flood... This crap does not belong in our schools .
They are much like fairy tales.However , what should belong in our schools is how and when these mythological gods and/or beliefs came to be .
Learning the history of these myths will certainly make individuals more aware of how outrageous all these claims are .
Education is the key .
Not story telling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religious beliefs are purely faith based.
IE; humankind came from Adam and Eve... A Big Flood... This crap does not belong in our schools.
They are much like fairy tales.However, what should belong in our schools is how and when these mythological gods and/or beliefs came to be.
Learning the history of these myths will certainly make individuals more aware of how outrageous all these claims are.
Education is the key.
Not story telling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617714</id>
	<title>Re:yet</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262353380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name</p></div><p>Doesn't it mean something different in Gaelic?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its nameDoes n't it mean something different in Gaelic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its nameDoesn't it mean something different in Gaelic?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623470</id>
	<title>Re:well god dammit</title>
	<author>taniwha</author>
	<datestamp>1262455260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think if you're an atheist (rather than an agnostic) then "there is a god" is probably all you need for blasphemy</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if you 're an atheist ( rather than an agnostic ) then " there is a god " is probably all you need for blasphemy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if you're an atheist (rather than an agnostic) then "there is a god" is probably all you need for blasphemy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617818</id>
	<title>Re:Attention, religious folks.</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1262353860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.</p><p>Beware, for Odin will get you for that comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There is no god , and Mohammed is his prophet.Beware , for Odin will get you for that comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.Beware, for Odin will get you for that comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30637008</id>
	<title>Re:This has to be...</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1262534760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." -- Mark Twain</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool .
" -- Mark Twain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.
" -- Mark Twain</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620274</id>
	<title>May you be half an hour in heaven...</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1262463720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you realize there is no God, and no Guinness, in the non-afterlife.</p><p>But seriously, "God" is a concept (specifically an abstract<br>counterfactual hypothetical) which seems to fill several human<br>psychological and social needs.</p><p>"God" gives us hope that the struggle has a purpose<br>"God" helps us overcome fear of death<br>"God" gives us some common moral stories and an ethos and<br>helps align the efforts of groups of us, so we can survive better.<br>"God" puts some kind of authority behind generally useful advise<br>passed down from the ancestors and elders, like "do unto others as..."<br>and "don't covet the neigbour's wife if you know what's good for you"<br>etc.</p><p>This sort of explanation, elaborated into finer detail and specifics,<br>explains all of the phenomenology of God-worship, God belief, and<br>religion so well, that there really is no need for and no room left for a supernatural<br>aspect to it all.</p><p>If that be blasphemy, bring it on.<br>I only wish I were Irish so I could prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt<br>that a supernatural God does not exist, so therefore the blasphemous statements<br>are defensible because they are true. If other people cannot handle the truth, that<br>is their issue. You cannot blame the messenger. That is irrational and immoral and illegal.</p><p>Let me ask you this? Can telling the truth ever be a crime? Unless the<br>truth is a state secret? So is the "non-existence of God" an Irish State Secret?<br>God does not exist. "God" exists and is a most powerful meme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you realize there is no God , and no Guinness , in the non-afterlife.But seriously , " God " is a concept ( specifically an abstractcounterfactual hypothetical ) which seems to fill several humanpsychological and social needs .
" God " gives us hope that the struggle has a purpose " God " helps us overcome fear of death " God " gives us some common moral stories and an ethos andhelps align the efforts of groups of us , so we can survive better .
" God " puts some kind of authority behind generally useful advisepassed down from the ancestors and elders , like " do unto others as... " and " do n't covet the neigbour 's wife if you know what 's good for you " etc.This sort of explanation , elaborated into finer detail and specifics,explains all of the phenomenology of God-worship , God belief , andreligion so well , that there really is no need for and no room left for a supernaturalaspect to it all.If that be blasphemy , bring it on.I only wish I were Irish so I could prove in court beyond a reasonable doubtthat a supernatural God does not exist , so therefore the blasphemous statementsare defensible because they are true .
If other people can not handle the truth , thatis their issue .
You can not blame the messenger .
That is irrational and immoral and illegal.Let me ask you this ?
Can telling the truth ever be a crime ?
Unless thetruth is a state secret ?
So is the " non-existence of God " an Irish State Secret ? God does not exist .
" God " exists and is a most powerful meme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you realize there is no God, and no Guinness, in the non-afterlife.But seriously, "God" is a concept (specifically an abstractcounterfactual hypothetical) which seems to fill several humanpsychological and social needs.
"God" gives us hope that the struggle has a purpose"God" helps us overcome fear of death"God" gives us some common moral stories and an ethos andhelps align the efforts of groups of us, so we can survive better.
"God" puts some kind of authority behind generally useful advisepassed down from the ancestors and elders, like "do unto others as..."and "don't covet the neigbour's wife if you know what's good for you"etc.This sort of explanation, elaborated into finer detail and specifics,explains all of the phenomenology of God-worship, God belief, andreligion so well, that there really is no need for and no room left for a supernaturalaspect to it all.If that be blasphemy, bring it on.I only wish I were Irish so I could prove in court beyond a reasonable doubtthat a supernatural God does not exist, so therefore the blasphemous statementsare defensible because they are true.
If other people cannot handle the truth, thatis their issue.
You cannot blame the messenger.
That is irrational and immoral and illegal.Let me ask you this?
Can telling the truth ever be a crime?
Unless thetruth is a state secret?
So is the "non-existence of God" an Irish State Secret?God does not exist.
"God" exists and is a most powerful meme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621562</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262440380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah the problem with that is its ok when there is a law to do that.</p><p>Its not ok when there isn't a law. Why? Because the majority has to pass or enact a law or legislation. The separation of church and state in america exists not to antagonize religion as much as defend reason from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah the problem with that is its ok when there is a law to do that.Its not ok when there is n't a law .
Why ? Because the majority has to pass or enact a law or legislation .
The separation of church and state in america exists not to antagonize religion as much as defend reason from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah the problem with that is its ok when there is a law to do that.Its not ok when there isn't a law.
Why? Because the majority has to pass or enact a law or legislation.
The separation of church and state in america exists not to antagonize religion as much as defend reason from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619154</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262363520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model. E.g. "God wants it to be that way, therefore it's OK that I lost my house, and I don't have to break down and shoot myself."</p></div><p>Religion is a metaphor.  A system for getting people to behave according to a moral framework without having to teach them a philosophical framework for morality.</p><p>Unfortunately, since it results in rote performance, rather than reasoned thought, it can be commandeered for immoral purposes, but that's true of any system of rules.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Religion is a mild schizophrenia .
A disease where people do n't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it , but a made-up internal model .
E.g. " God wants it to be that way , therefore it 's OK that I lost my house , and I do n't have to break down and shoot myself .
" Religion is a metaphor .
A system for getting people to behave according to a moral framework without having to teach them a philosophical framework for morality.Unfortunately , since it results in rote performance , rather than reasoned thought , it can be commandeered for immoral purposes , but that 's true of any system of rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religion is a mild schizophrenia.
A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.
E.g. "God wants it to be that way, therefore it's OK that I lost my house, and I don't have to break down and shoot myself.
"Religion is a metaphor.
A system for getting people to behave according to a moral framework without having to teach them a philosophical framework for morality.Unfortunately, since it results in rote performance, rather than reasoned thought, it can be commandeered for immoral purposes, but that's true of any system of rules.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544</id>
	<title>Attention, religious folks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262352240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.</p><p>(Awesome, my captcha is "opiate.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no god , and Mohammed is his prophet .
( Awesome , my captcha is " opiate .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.
(Awesome, my captcha is "opiate.
")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619854</id>
	<title>Blasphemy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sparta does not like blasphemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sparta does not like blasphemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sparta does not like blasphemy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618876</id>
	<title>Re:yet</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1262360580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(yes the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name)</p></div><p>No, it has the word "f&#225;il".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( yes the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name ) No , it has the word " f   il " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(yes the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name)No, it has the word "fáil".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621334</id>
	<title>This isn't what the Irish people want</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1262436540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to give a little background on whats going on over here. The governing party, Fianna F&#225;il (soldiers of destiny if you don't mind) have managed to run the country into one of the worst recessions in Europe by a fairly spectacular series of bad decisions, coasting through into a coalition with the greens mainly on inertia. The leader of that party, Bertie Ahern, was run out of office under a storm of corruption accustations, and his finance minister (the same one that ran the country into the ground) took over.<br> <br>
This mandateless buffoon is one of the least popular leaders the country has ever seen, a morbidly obese fellow by the name of Brian Cowen. This stellar example of why sons shouldn't be allowed to run for office in the same constituency as their father was last seen jetting off to Rome to kow-tow to the Pope over the massive child abuse rings that were operated <i>by Catholic priests in Catholic industrial schools</i> in the 50s and 60s. Thats right, the Clowen apologised to a religious leader for abuse carried out by religious officials.<br> <br>
I and the vast majority of Irish people feel sick to our cores at this new law, but the fact remains at this point that we have no real voice or means to overthrow the government - we can't force a general election so these yahoos have free reign to blacken the name of the nation internationally until 2012 at least. Its a monstrous situation and I sincerely ask that people hearing about this dont' use it to judge the Irish people as a whole. The government hasn't really represented us for quite some time.<br> <br>
If you want to help out to fight this problem, there are some small groups struggling to get traction politicially, although the media doesn't really want to let them in. One of the most promising is <a href="http://www.amhrannua.com/" title="amhrannua.com">Amhr&#225;n Nua</a> [amhrannua.com], the new tune party, so send help if you can, well wishes, whatever to give these few the chance to be heard. The people of Ireland will thank you for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to give a little background on whats going on over here .
The governing party , Fianna F   il ( soldiers of destiny if you do n't mind ) have managed to run the country into one of the worst recessions in Europe by a fairly spectacular series of bad decisions , coasting through into a coalition with the greens mainly on inertia .
The leader of that party , Bertie Ahern , was run out of office under a storm of corruption accustations , and his finance minister ( the same one that ran the country into the ground ) took over .
This mandateless buffoon is one of the least popular leaders the country has ever seen , a morbidly obese fellow by the name of Brian Cowen .
This stellar example of why sons should n't be allowed to run for office in the same constituency as their father was last seen jetting off to Rome to kow-tow to the Pope over the massive child abuse rings that were operated by Catholic priests in Catholic industrial schools in the 50s and 60s .
Thats right , the Clowen apologised to a religious leader for abuse carried out by religious officials .
I and the vast majority of Irish people feel sick to our cores at this new law , but the fact remains at this point that we have no real voice or means to overthrow the government - we ca n't force a general election so these yahoos have free reign to blacken the name of the nation internationally until 2012 at least .
Its a monstrous situation and I sincerely ask that people hearing about this dont ' use it to judge the Irish people as a whole .
The government has n't really represented us for quite some time .
If you want to help out to fight this problem , there are some small groups struggling to get traction politicially , although the media does n't really want to let them in .
One of the most promising is Amhr   n Nua [ amhrannua.com ] , the new tune party , so send help if you can , well wishes , whatever to give these few the chance to be heard .
The people of Ireland will thank you for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to give a little background on whats going on over here.
The governing party, Fianna Fáil (soldiers of destiny if you don't mind) have managed to run the country into one of the worst recessions in Europe by a fairly spectacular series of bad decisions, coasting through into a coalition with the greens mainly on inertia.
The leader of that party, Bertie Ahern, was run out of office under a storm of corruption accustations, and his finance minister (the same one that ran the country into the ground) took over.
This mandateless buffoon is one of the least popular leaders the country has ever seen, a morbidly obese fellow by the name of Brian Cowen.
This stellar example of why sons shouldn't be allowed to run for office in the same constituency as their father was last seen jetting off to Rome to kow-tow to the Pope over the massive child abuse rings that were operated by Catholic priests in Catholic industrial schools in the 50s and 60s.
Thats right, the Clowen apologised to a religious leader for abuse carried out by religious officials.
I and the vast majority of Irish people feel sick to our cores at this new law, but the fact remains at this point that we have no real voice or means to overthrow the government - we can't force a general election so these yahoos have free reign to blacken the name of the nation internationally until 2012 at least.
Its a monstrous situation and I sincerely ask that people hearing about this dont' use it to judge the Irish people as a whole.
The government hasn't really represented us for quite some time.
If you want to help out to fight this problem, there are some small groups struggling to get traction politicially, although the media doesn't really want to let them in.
One of the most promising is Amhrán Nua [amhrannua.com], the new tune party, so send help if you can, well wishes, whatever to give these few the chance to be heard.
The people of Ireland will thank you for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617758</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262353560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.</p></div></blockquote><p>And yet they're building a massive citizen assisted censorship blacklist for the internet...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.And yet they 're building a massive citizen assisted censorship blacklist for the internet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.And yet they're building a massive citizen assisted censorship blacklist for the internet...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618478</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262357580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Belief systems are knowledge are they not?</i></p><p>There's a saying in German that means, loosly translated, "believing means not knowing". Aka "he who knows nothing has to believe everything".</p><p>So, I'd vote no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Belief systems are knowledge are they not ? There 's a saying in German that means , loosly translated , " believing means not knowing " .
Aka " he who knows nothing has to believe everything " .So , I 'd vote no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Belief systems are knowledge are they not?There's a saying in German that means, loosly translated, "believing means not knowing".
Aka "he who knows nothing has to believe everything".So, I'd vote no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629726</id>
	<title>fuck it</title>
	<author>dpastern</author>
	<datestamp>1262459340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a silly law.  This law is in breach of the human right to the freedom of speech (and religious choice as well I might add).</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a silly law .
This law is in breach of the human right to the freedom of speech ( and religious choice as well I might add ) .Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a silly law.
This law is in breach of the human right to the freedom of speech (and religious choice as well I might add).Dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617486</id>
	<title>Catch me now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262351940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck catholics, fuck protestants, fuck jews, fuck muslims</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck catholics , fuck protestants , fuck jews , fuck muslims</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck catholics, fuck protestants, fuck jews, fuck muslims</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622348</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>Random BedHead Ed</author>
	<datestamp>1262448540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland?</p></div><p>If both Christianity and Islam are recognized in Ireland then the adherents of both religions have serious challenges ahead - at least as serious as those of any atheist. Christianity's basic premise is that Jesus was divine, whereas Jesus's existence as a decidedly <em>non-divine</em> prophet is a core component of Islam. Either claim is blasphemous to the other religion, so all Muslims and Christians should probably be fined if they speak out about these beliefs. (I know, this sounds bad on free speech grounds, but think of the revenue potential!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland ? If both Christianity and Islam are recognized in Ireland then the adherents of both religions have serious challenges ahead - at least as serious as those of any atheist .
Christianity 's basic premise is that Jesus was divine , whereas Jesus 's existence as a decidedly non-divine prophet is a core component of Islam .
Either claim is blasphemous to the other religion , so all Muslims and Christians should probably be fined if they speak out about these beliefs .
( I know , this sounds bad on free speech grounds , but think of the revenue potential !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland?If both Christianity and Islam are recognized in Ireland then the adherents of both religions have serious challenges ahead - at least as serious as those of any atheist.
Christianity's basic premise is that Jesus was divine, whereas Jesus's existence as a decidedly non-divine prophet is a core component of Islam.
Either claim is blasphemous to the other religion, so all Muslims and Christians should probably be fined if they speak out about these beliefs.
(I know, this sounds bad on free speech grounds, but think of the revenue potential!
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617668</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262353260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall that one Christian leader here in Australia opposes laws against blasphemy because to be implemented properly they would have to protect <b>all</b> the religions we currently recognise. And that a lot.</p><p>Ireland and Saudi Arabia don't have the same problem of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall that one Christian leader here in Australia opposes laws against blasphemy because to be implemented properly they would have to protect all the religions we currently recognise .
And that a lot.Ireland and Saudi Arabia do n't have the same problem of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall that one Christian leader here in Australia opposes laws against blasphemy because to be implemented properly they would have to protect all the religions we currently recognise.
And that a lot.Ireland and Saudi Arabia don't have the same problem of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621510</id>
	<title>Pope declares "unique copyright" on child abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262439660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Vatican&reg; has stated that the rape&copy; of children by Catholic priests is protected by a "special and unique" copyright, and anyone attempting to discuss the matter will be sued, excommunicated and declared a Suppressive Person.</p><p>"Recent years have witnessed a great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father, L. Benedict Ratzinger&reg;," said the statement. "As such, any person or organisation seeking to name, defame or allude to His Holiness&reg;, any of his Bishops or Priests, or any activities of any of said persons in any capacity, shall be deemed to have violated the Sacred Covenant of Berne, to be a 'no case gain' Suppressive Person and to be duly excommunicated and sued into atomic dust. ALWAYS ATTACK, NEVER DEFEND."</p><p>Evidence only recently brought to light, "which we can't show you, it's copyright," apparently demonstrates that playwright William Shakespeare was secretly Catholic. "So we're claiming copyright in everything he did too. And Francis Bacon. And the Earl of Oxford."</p><p>The Church's lawyers have worked hard to defend their intellectual property rights on such creative works as those of the Irish priests upon their young charges that only recently came to light. "Our determination to protect and preserve the rights to view, discuss or know about these three-dimensional kinetic performance works, and our tour support for the priests to take these works 'on the road' to new parishes, demonstrates the unimpeachable sincerity of our stance &mdash; firmly behind the artists. Legs wide, of course."</p><p>The Pope himself has been appalled at the reaction to his recent decision to beatify Adolf Hitler, and described his visit to the Pius XII memorial as "an upsetting encounter with cruelty and senseless hatred. I didn't like it much either."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vatican   has stated that the rape   of children by Catholic priests is protected by a " special and unique " copyright , and anyone attempting to discuss the matter will be sued , excommunicated and declared a Suppressive Person .
" Recent years have witnessed a great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father , L. Benedict Ratzinger   , " said the statement .
" As such , any person or organisation seeking to name , defame or allude to His Holiness   , any of his Bishops or Priests , or any activities of any of said persons in any capacity , shall be deemed to have violated the Sacred Covenant of Berne , to be a 'no case gain ' Suppressive Person and to be duly excommunicated and sued into atomic dust .
ALWAYS ATTACK , NEVER DEFEND .
" Evidence only recently brought to light , " which we ca n't show you , it 's copyright , " apparently demonstrates that playwright William Shakespeare was secretly Catholic .
" So we 're claiming copyright in everything he did too .
And Francis Bacon .
And the Earl of Oxford .
" The Church 's lawyers have worked hard to defend their intellectual property rights on such creative works as those of the Irish priests upon their young charges that only recently came to light .
" Our determination to protect and preserve the rights to view , discuss or know about these three-dimensional kinetic performance works , and our tour support for the priests to take these works 'on the road ' to new parishes , demonstrates the unimpeachable sincerity of our stance    firmly behind the artists .
Legs wide , of course .
" The Pope himself has been appalled at the reaction to his recent decision to beatify Adolf Hitler , and described his visit to the Pius XII memorial as " an upsetting encounter with cruelty and senseless hatred .
I did n't like it much either .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vatican® has stated that the rape© of children by Catholic priests is protected by a "special and unique" copyright, and anyone attempting to discuss the matter will be sued, excommunicated and declared a Suppressive Person.
"Recent years have witnessed a great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father, L. Benedict Ratzinger®," said the statement.
"As such, any person or organisation seeking to name, defame or allude to His Holiness®, any of his Bishops or Priests, or any activities of any of said persons in any capacity, shall be deemed to have violated the Sacred Covenant of Berne, to be a 'no case gain' Suppressive Person and to be duly excommunicated and sued into atomic dust.
ALWAYS ATTACK, NEVER DEFEND.
"Evidence only recently brought to light, "which we can't show you, it's copyright," apparently demonstrates that playwright William Shakespeare was secretly Catholic.
"So we're claiming copyright in everything he did too.
And Francis Bacon.
And the Earl of Oxford.
"The Church's lawyers have worked hard to defend their intellectual property rights on such creative works as those of the Irish priests upon their young charges that only recently came to light.
"Our determination to protect and preserve the rights to view, discuss or know about these three-dimensional kinetic performance works, and our tour support for the priests to take these works 'on the road' to new parishes, demonstrates the unimpeachable sincerity of our stance — firmly behind the artists.
Legs wide, of course.
"The Pope himself has been appalled at the reaction to his recent decision to beatify Adolf Hitler, and described his visit to the Pius XII memorial as "an upsetting encounter with cruelty and senseless hatred.
I didn't like it much either.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620460</id>
	<title>It's all just proof...</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1262423160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all just proof to me that religion is a form of insanity, or mental impairment, inability for objective free thought, or rational analysis, or failure and inability to reach logical conclusions. <br>
How far of a leap is it really, from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the sky, to believing that the dismembered body parts of albinos in Africa possess magic powers? Or that suicide bombing will land you in paradise? Or that getting on your knees and begging a supposed omnipotent being for help, would yield results? The same being, mind you, who impotently, or indifferently observed the extermination of 12,000,000,000 humans in the concentration camps of Europe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all just proof to me that religion is a form of insanity , or mental impairment , inability for objective free thought , or rational analysis , or failure and inability to reach logical conclusions .
How far of a leap is it really , from believing , without proof , of a magic being in the sky , to believing that the dismembered body parts of albinos in Africa possess magic powers ?
Or that suicide bombing will land you in paradise ?
Or that getting on your knees and begging a supposed omnipotent being for help , would yield results ?
The same being , mind you , who impotently , or indifferently observed the extermination of 12,000,000,000 humans in the concentration camps of Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all just proof to me that religion is a form of insanity, or mental impairment, inability for objective free thought, or rational analysis, or failure and inability to reach logical conclusions.
How far of a leap is it really, from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the sky, to believing that the dismembered body parts of albinos in Africa possess magic powers?
Or that suicide bombing will land you in paradise?
Or that getting on your knees and begging a supposed omnipotent being for help, would yield results?
The same being, mind you, who impotently, or indifferently observed the extermination of 12,000,000,000 humans in the concentration camps of Europe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621898</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262444340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously religious people are <i>a priori</i> ignorant. What do you think belief is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously religious people are a priori ignorant .
What do you think belief is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously religious people are a priori ignorant.
What do you think belief is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620120</id>
	<title>Re:I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1262375160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The (false)prophet Muhammad was a homo.  Now, I will not only be hunted by Interpol(dancers) for breaking Irish law, but some jihadist cocksucker will probably trying to rape-bomb me.  Hey, I just made up a new phrase and probably bought myself a ban.  FUCK YOU TOWEL HEADS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ( false ) prophet Muhammad was a homo .
Now , I will not only be hunted by Interpol ( dancers ) for breaking Irish law , but some jihadist cocksucker will probably trying to rape-bomb me .
Hey , I just made up a new phrase and probably bought myself a ban .
FUCK YOU TOWEL HEADS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The (false)prophet Muhammad was a homo.
Now, I will not only be hunted by Interpol(dancers) for breaking Irish law, but some jihadist cocksucker will probably trying to rape-bomb me.
Hey, I just made up a new phrase and probably bought myself a ban.
FUCK YOU TOWEL HEADS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618838</id>
	<title>Re:well god dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262360280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Maldives</a> [wikipedia.org] recently (1.5 years back) passed a new constitution. It states that only Muslims can be citizens! Conversely, if you convert from a Muslim - you are no longer a citizen!</p><p>Hey Ireland, take a lessen from Maldives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maldives [ wikipedia.org ] recently ( 1.5 years back ) passed a new constitution .
It states that only Muslims can be citizens !
Conversely , if you convert from a Muslim - you are no longer a citizen ! Hey Ireland , take a lessen from Maldives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maldives [wikipedia.org] recently (1.5 years back) passed a new constitution.
It states that only Muslims can be citizens!
Conversely, if you convert from a Muslim - you are no longer a citizen!Hey Ireland, take a lessen from Maldives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624430</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>mhelander</author>
	<datestamp>1262460120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wrote: "As the spokesman for Monosetians"...</p><p>I'm sure you mean: "As the one Monosetian" in accordance with your strong "belief that all sets are of only one item". Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wrote : " As the spokesman for Monosetians " ...I 'm sure you mean : " As the one Monosetian " in accordance with your strong " belief that all sets are of only one item " .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wrote: "As the spokesman for Monosetians"...I'm sure you mean: "As the one Monosetian" in accordance with your strong "belief that all sets are of only one item".
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30641742</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't what the Irish people want</title>
	<author>camazotz</author>
	<datestamp>1262624880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that's a real plight. Welcome to the same leaky boat the US gets lumped in to by the rest of Europe...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's a real plight .
Welcome to the same leaky boat the US gets lumped in to by the rest of Europe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's a real plight.
Welcome to the same leaky boat the US gets lumped in to by the rest of Europe...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30630126</id>
	<title>News: Ireland's Blasphemy Law Goes Into Effect</title>
	<author>tollerMensch</author>
	<datestamp>1262550360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some students got suspended from Tufts University for offending Islam in the conservative student magazine. The offensive remarks were all quotes from the Koran.</p><p>I got banned from posting comments on the web site of a conservative newspaper for mentioning that the Koran says that virtuous men go to heaven and get waited on by naked little boys.</p><p>Free speech is under attack from both sides of the political spectrum in the US.</p><p>(BTW, I am a theofalliblist. We believe that God is all-powerful and all-good, and the only reason there is evil and suffering in the world is because he makes a lot of mistakes. E.g., he created AIDS accidentally when he tried to stop a drought in Africa.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some students got suspended from Tufts University for offending Islam in the conservative student magazine .
The offensive remarks were all quotes from the Koran.I got banned from posting comments on the web site of a conservative newspaper for mentioning that the Koran says that virtuous men go to heaven and get waited on by naked little boys.Free speech is under attack from both sides of the political spectrum in the US .
( BTW , I am a theofalliblist .
We believe that God is all-powerful and all-good , and the only reason there is evil and suffering in the world is because he makes a lot of mistakes .
E.g. , he created AIDS accidentally when he tried to stop a drought in Africa .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some students got suspended from Tufts University for offending Islam in the conservative student magazine.
The offensive remarks were all quotes from the Koran.I got banned from posting comments on the web site of a conservative newspaper for mentioning that the Koran says that virtuous men go to heaven and get waited on by naked little boys.Free speech is under attack from both sides of the political spectrum in the US.
(BTW, I am a theofalliblist.
We believe that God is all-powerful and all-good, and the only reason there is evil and suffering in the world is because he makes a lot of mistakes.
E.g., he created AIDS accidentally when he tried to stop a drought in Africa.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620168</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1262375760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached."</p></div></blockquote><p>Please, feel free to provide examples. I frequently see statements like this, but there's rarely any actual substance to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for , but that does n't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method can not be applied .
Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say " Well !
These are not scientific questions , therefore they can not and will not be approached .
" Please , feel free to provide examples .
I frequently see statements like this , but there 's rarely any actual substance to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.
Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well!
These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached.
"Please, feel free to provide examples.
I frequently see statements like this, but there's rarely any actual substance to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618890</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1262360700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state.</p></div><p>Do you think it's ok to force your beliefs on me?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right , they have separation of church and state.Do you think it 's ok to force your beliefs on me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state.Do you think it's ok to force your beliefs on me?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624114</id>
	<title>Re:This has to be...</title>
	<author>d\_54321</author>
	<datestamp>1262458380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, if this "has nothing to do with government's enforcement of religion", then who will force me to pay the fine when I blaspheme?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , if this " has nothing to do with government 's enforcement of religion " , then who will force me to pay the fine when I blaspheme ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, if this "has nothing to do with government's enforcement of religion", then who will force me to pay the fine when I blaspheme?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622750</id>
	<title>Re:I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid fucking Miks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid fucking Miks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid fucking Miks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629060</id>
	<title>okay</title>
	<author>generalSocial</author>
	<datestamp>1262450940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>baaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrffffffffffffffff.

okay, I'm being funny. But not that funny. Isn't guv and religin suppost to be seprat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>baaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrffffffffffffffff .
okay , I 'm being funny .
But not that funny .
Is n't guv and religin suppost to be seprat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>baaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrffffffffffffffff.
okay, I'm being funny.
But not that funny.
Isn't guv and religin suppost to be seprat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618830</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262360160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are taught as if there would by facts or some kind of science, which they are not. There is absolutely no scientific underpinning to them. I don't say religion should not be taught at schools, I say only things that have scientific underpinning should be taught at schools. This just happens to excludes religions by some coincidence.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are taught as if there would by facts or some kind of science , which they are not .
There is absolutely no scientific underpinning to them .
I do n't say religion should not be taught at schools , I say only things that have scientific underpinning should be taught at schools .
This just happens to excludes religions by some coincidence .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are taught as if there would by facts or some kind of science, which they are not.
There is absolutely no scientific underpinning to them.
I don't say religion should not be taught at schools, I say only things that have scientific underpinning should be taught at schools.
This just happens to excludes religions by some coincidence.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30625738</id>
	<title>Whats to believe</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1262424660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats to believe?<br>Quoting something found on the internet.</p><p>"What is the point of Jesus' grim story about a vacant house being occupied by an evil force? It is not enough to banish evil thoughts and habits. We must also fill the void with God who is the source of all that is good and upright. Augustine said that our lives have a God-shaped void which only God can fill satisfactory. If we attempt to leave it vacant or to fill it with something else, we will be worse in the end. What do you fill the void in your life with? Jesus makes it clear that there are no neutral parties. We are either for Jesus or against him, for the kingdom of God or against it. There are two kingdoms in opposition to one another&#226;" the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness under the rule of Satan. If we disobey God's word, we open to door to the power of sin and Satan. If we want to live in freedom from sin and Satan, then our house must be occupied by Jesus where he is enthroned as Lord and Savior. Do you know the peace and security of a life submitted to God and his word?"</p><p>Every equation has two sides.</p><p>According to the equation above you can farm evil forces, make them grow.<br>Its really quite simple you see, just banish evil and leave a void.</p><p>Its actually easier. lazier than otherwise, as its at least one step less.<br>You should know this, perhaps not, for to believe you are a self professed sinner, in part, not whole, how would you fully know?</p><p>But there is also something else made clear in this line of thought and regardless of where you read it. Perhaps something of a contradiction of god, something not hidden, but just not ever seen.</p><p>Expel an evil and leave a void, don't fill it at all.<br>If the void is evil, then you failed to expel.<br>So try again, again and again, until you have nothing left at all.<br>You will be void, forever evil yourself if you believe evil is void.</p><p>The void contains not good nor evil, no light or darkness, its not even neutral, not for or against anything, there is not even emptiness, its just void, absent of anything and all. That's why its called "void".</p><p>Imagine yourself inside a translucent sphere, look around, try to see the whole, though you never will. But outside the sphere and from far enough away, you can see the whole sphere.<br>And so it is from the void POV regarding it's child named god.</p><p>For those who'd like to farm evil, via leaving a void, you have no guarantee you will succeed.<br>You may instead, from a void POV, be fully seen for what you are, just a blind judgmental fool or perhaps that's just a child named god.</p><p>Wanna know what I see?<br>You don't really believe!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats to believe ? Quoting something found on the internet .
" What is the point of Jesus ' grim story about a vacant house being occupied by an evil force ?
It is not enough to banish evil thoughts and habits .
We must also fill the void with God who is the source of all that is good and upright .
Augustine said that our lives have a God-shaped void which only God can fill satisfactory .
If we attempt to leave it vacant or to fill it with something else , we will be worse in the end .
What do you fill the void in your life with ?
Jesus makes it clear that there are no neutral parties .
We are either for Jesus or against him , for the kingdom of God or against it .
There are two kingdoms in opposition to one another   " the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness under the rule of Satan .
If we disobey God 's word , we open to door to the power of sin and Satan .
If we want to live in freedom from sin and Satan , then our house must be occupied by Jesus where he is enthroned as Lord and Savior .
Do you know the peace and security of a life submitted to God and his word ?
" Every equation has two sides.According to the equation above you can farm evil forces , make them grow.Its really quite simple you see , just banish evil and leave a void.Its actually easier .
lazier than otherwise , as its at least one step less.You should know this , perhaps not , for to believe you are a self professed sinner , in part , not whole , how would you fully know ? But there is also something else made clear in this line of thought and regardless of where you read it .
Perhaps something of a contradiction of god , something not hidden , but just not ever seen.Expel an evil and leave a void , do n't fill it at all.If the void is evil , then you failed to expel.So try again , again and again , until you have nothing left at all.You will be void , forever evil yourself if you believe evil is void.The void contains not good nor evil , no light or darkness , its not even neutral , not for or against anything , there is not even emptiness , its just void , absent of anything and all .
That 's why its called " void " .Imagine yourself inside a translucent sphere , look around , try to see the whole , though you never will .
But outside the sphere and from far enough away , you can see the whole sphere.And so it is from the void POV regarding it 's child named god.For those who 'd like to farm evil , via leaving a void , you have no guarantee you will succeed.You may instead , from a void POV , be fully seen for what you are , just a blind judgmental fool or perhaps that 's just a child named god.Wan na know what I see ? You do n't really believe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats to believe?Quoting something found on the internet.
"What is the point of Jesus' grim story about a vacant house being occupied by an evil force?
It is not enough to banish evil thoughts and habits.
We must also fill the void with God who is the source of all that is good and upright.
Augustine said that our lives have a God-shaped void which only God can fill satisfactory.
If we attempt to leave it vacant or to fill it with something else, we will be worse in the end.
What do you fill the void in your life with?
Jesus makes it clear that there are no neutral parties.
We are either for Jesus or against him, for the kingdom of God or against it.
There are two kingdoms in opposition to one anotherâ" the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness under the rule of Satan.
If we disobey God's word, we open to door to the power of sin and Satan.
If we want to live in freedom from sin and Satan, then our house must be occupied by Jesus where he is enthroned as Lord and Savior.
Do you know the peace and security of a life submitted to God and his word?
"Every equation has two sides.According to the equation above you can farm evil forces, make them grow.Its really quite simple you see, just banish evil and leave a void.Its actually easier.
lazier than otherwise, as its at least one step less.You should know this, perhaps not, for to believe you are a self professed sinner, in part, not whole, how would you fully know?But there is also something else made clear in this line of thought and regardless of where you read it.
Perhaps something of a contradiction of god, something not hidden, but just not ever seen.Expel an evil and leave a void, don't fill it at all.If the void is evil, then you failed to expel.So try again, again and again, until you have nothing left at all.You will be void, forever evil yourself if you believe evil is void.The void contains not good nor evil, no light or darkness, its not even neutral, not for or against anything, there is not even emptiness, its just void, absent of anything and all.
That's why its called "void".Imagine yourself inside a translucent sphere, look around, try to see the whole, though you never will.
But outside the sphere and from far enough away, you can see the whole sphere.And so it is from the void POV regarding it's child named god.For those who'd like to farm evil, via leaving a void, you have no guarantee you will succeed.You may instead, from a void POV, be fully seen for what you are, just a blind judgmental fool or perhaps that's just a child named god.Wanna know what I see?You don't really believe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621314</id>
	<title>Proof of god's non-existence</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1262436120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine the following scenario: you are sitting outside on a log in the snow. There is a nice January sun shining down on you, the temperature is a crisp -8 and you are minding your own business. Suddenly someone comes along and shouts out loud 'YOU DO NOT EXIST'. What would your reaction be?</p><p>The most likely reaction would be one of scorn and ridicule, right? Being secure in the fact of your existence you would not feel the need for others around you to confirm your existence. You KNOW you exist so what do you care what others say?</p><p>Now imagine you are..... GOD. Big Capital Letter GOD, creator of the universe (or at least separator of light and darkness if you want to follow the most recent translations) and everything that moves and lives and breathes. Your denizens are like microbes on a human's skin, so many of your creation walks and crawls and creeps and slithers around that blue planet. What would you care if one of those creatures, one of those microbes, proclaims you non-existence? Would you clamor for confirmation of it to those other creatures, those other microbes? Of course not. You are GOD! You don't need confirmation of anything! You are the past, the present and the future, everything moves only by your grace, you are omnipotent and omniscient.</p><p>Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?</p><p>The only possible explanation is that they are not sure at all that this deity they proclaim to believe in actually exists. They will do anything to keep up appearances, anything to keep their mind-construct from failing. Anyone who shakes the tree has to be stopped before they fall out. Anyone who points out that the book they read is actually an allegorical work of fiction has to be punished.</p><p>By trying to stop anyone from claiming god does not exist they prove that god does, in fact, not exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine the following scenario : you are sitting outside on a log in the snow .
There is a nice January sun shining down on you , the temperature is a crisp -8 and you are minding your own business .
Suddenly someone comes along and shouts out loud 'YOU DO NOT EXIST' .
What would your reaction be ? The most likely reaction would be one of scorn and ridicule , right ?
Being secure in the fact of your existence you would not feel the need for others around you to confirm your existence .
You KNOW you exist so what do you care what others say ? Now imagine you are..... GOD. Big Capital Letter GOD , creator of the universe ( or at least separator of light and darkness if you want to follow the most recent translations ) and everything that moves and lives and breathes .
Your denizens are like microbes on a human 's skin , so many of your creation walks and crawls and creeps and slithers around that blue planet .
What would you care if one of those creatures , one of those microbes , proclaims you non-existence ?
Would you clamor for confirmation of it to those other creatures , those other microbes ?
Of course not .
You are GOD !
You do n't need confirmation of anything !
You are the past , the present and the future , everything moves only by your grace , you are omnipotent and omniscient.Why , then , do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned ? The only possible explanation is that they are not sure at all that this deity they proclaim to believe in actually exists .
They will do anything to keep up appearances , anything to keep their mind-construct from failing .
Anyone who shakes the tree has to be stopped before they fall out .
Anyone who points out that the book they read is actually an allegorical work of fiction has to be punished.By trying to stop anyone from claiming god does not exist they prove that god does , in fact , not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine the following scenario: you are sitting outside on a log in the snow.
There is a nice January sun shining down on you, the temperature is a crisp -8 and you are minding your own business.
Suddenly someone comes along and shouts out loud 'YOU DO NOT EXIST'.
What would your reaction be?The most likely reaction would be one of scorn and ridicule, right?
Being secure in the fact of your existence you would not feel the need for others around you to confirm your existence.
You KNOW you exist so what do you care what others say?Now imagine you are..... GOD. Big Capital Letter GOD, creator of the universe (or at least separator of light and darkness if you want to follow the most recent translations) and everything that moves and lives and breathes.
Your denizens are like microbes on a human's skin, so many of your creation walks and crawls and creeps and slithers around that blue planet.
What would you care if one of those creatures, one of those microbes, proclaims you non-existence?
Would you clamor for confirmation of it to those other creatures, those other microbes?
Of course not.
You are GOD!
You don't need confirmation of anything!
You are the past, the present and the future, everything moves only by your grace, you are omnipotent and omniscient.Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?The only possible explanation is that they are not sure at all that this deity they proclaim to believe in actually exists.
They will do anything to keep up appearances, anything to keep their mind-construct from failing.
Anyone who shakes the tree has to be stopped before they fall out.
Anyone who points out that the book they read is actually an allegorical work of fiction has to be punished.By trying to stop anyone from claiming god does not exist they prove that god does, in fact, not exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622704</id>
	<title>Articles Like These..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That provoke discussion of religion or, rather, the mockery of it, just shows how grossly ignorant of the subject slashdot's pretentious "atheist" community really is.</p><p>Skimming through the bible you can learn that:<br>Heaven was an idea, not an afterlife.<br>Hell is never mentioned.<br>Jesus never walked on water, never magically turned water to wine, never fed a thousand people with a loaf of bread.<br>The book of Genesis is made entirely up of parables.<br>God was probably a reference to our leaders, and theirs back then.<br>Etc.</p><p>But I can't expect slashdotter's to RTFB when they can't even RTFA. Still, I guess you can pride yourselves on being less naive (see also, retarded) than the followers who believe all kinds of ridiculous shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That provoke discussion of religion or , rather , the mockery of it , just shows how grossly ignorant of the subject slashdot 's pretentious " atheist " community really is.Skimming through the bible you can learn that : Heaven was an idea , not an afterlife.Hell is never mentioned.Jesus never walked on water , never magically turned water to wine , never fed a thousand people with a loaf of bread.The book of Genesis is made entirely up of parables.God was probably a reference to our leaders , and theirs back then.Etc.But I ca n't expect slashdotter 's to RTFB when they ca n't even RTFA .
Still , I guess you can pride yourselves on being less naive ( see also , retarded ) than the followers who believe all kinds of ridiculous shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That provoke discussion of religion or, rather, the mockery of it, just shows how grossly ignorant of the subject slashdot's pretentious "atheist" community really is.Skimming through the bible you can learn that:Heaven was an idea, not an afterlife.Hell is never mentioned.Jesus never walked on water, never magically turned water to wine, never fed a thousand people with a loaf of bread.The book of Genesis is made entirely up of parables.God was probably a reference to our leaders, and theirs back then.Etc.But I can't expect slashdotter's to RTFB when they can't even RTFA.
Still, I guess you can pride yourselves on being less naive (see also, retarded) than the followers who believe all kinds of ridiculous shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629220</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jesus Christ sucks horse cocks. Mary wasn't a virgin. The Catholic church molests little boys and tries to cover it up without putting a stop to it.</p><p>What are you going to do about it, Ireland?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus Christ sucks horse cocks .
Mary was n't a virgin .
The Catholic church molests little boys and tries to cover it up without putting a stop to it.What are you going to do about it , Ireland ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus Christ sucks horse cocks.
Mary wasn't a virgin.
The Catholic church molests little boys and tries to cover it up without putting a stop to it.What are you going to do about it, Ireland?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>bitrex</author>
	<datestamp>1262365980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>.Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.</p></div><p>You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion.  Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect. Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.  Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached." It won't happen, our natural desire to <i>know</i> which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process. Or at least don&rsquo;t make his life even worse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School? Do you feel that all religious people are <i>a priori</i> ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.Religion is a mild schizophrenia .
A disease where people do n't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it , but a made-up internal model.You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion .
Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect .
Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for , but that does n't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method can not be applied .
Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say " Well !
These are not scientific questions , therefore they can not and will not be approached .
" It wo n't happen , our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.If you see someone who is very religious ( and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state , when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it ) , try to find the roots , help him face and fix them , and let him work the way up again , fixing the disparities in the process .
Or at least don    t make his life even worse .
: ) Do you suppose this approach would work at say , the Harvard Divinity School ?
Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins , simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .Religion is a mild schizophrenia.
A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion.
Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect.
Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.
Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well!
These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached.
" It won't happen, our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process.
Or at least don’t make his life even worse.
:)Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School?
Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618290</id>
	<title>Re:Another step backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262356440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[citation needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621300</id>
	<title>What I don't understand is</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1262435940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I don't understand is why do religions get special treatment from any other philosophy? I understand that for a long time you were persecuted for following ones the king didn't like, but why isn't that solved by Freedom of Thought, not Freedom of Religion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is why do religions get special treatment from any other philosophy ?
I understand that for a long time you were persecuted for following ones the king did n't like , but why is n't that solved by Freedom of Thought , not Freedom of Religion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is why do religions get special treatment from any other philosophy?
I understand that for a long time you were persecuted for following ones the king didn't like, but why isn't that solved by Freedom of Thought, not Freedom of Religion?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617532</id>
	<title>Blasphemy Law Goes Into Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262352120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God damn it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God damn it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God damn it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30716390</id>
	<title>AC2012</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263156840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Christian conception of sin as the will of the natural man<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is the basis of all internal conflict -- of moral insanity." -- Aleister Crowley</p><p>Aleister Crowley's 25 blasphemous quotations:</p><p><a href="http://ac2012.com/2010/01/05/against-all-gods-of-men/" title="ac2012.com" rel="nofollow">http://ac2012.com/2010/01/05/against-all-gods-of-men/</a> [ac2012.com]</p><p>"We realize that Aleister Crowley is dead. And British. And, moreover, not running for office. Nevertheless, we believe that the most effective vote you can cast in 2012 is one for Aleister Crowley."</p><p>Vote Aleister Crowley 2012:</p><p><a href="http://ac2012.com/about-aleister-crowley-2012/" title="ac2012.com" rel="nofollow">http://ac2012.com/about-aleister-crowley-2012/</a> [ac2012.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Christian conception of sin as the will of the natural man ... is the basis of all internal conflict -- of moral insanity .
" -- Aleister CrowleyAleister Crowley 's 25 blasphemous quotations : http : //ac2012.com/2010/01/05/against-all-gods-of-men/ [ ac2012.com ] " We realize that Aleister Crowley is dead .
And British .
And , moreover , not running for office .
Nevertheless , we believe that the most effective vote you can cast in 2012 is one for Aleister Crowley .
" Vote Aleister Crowley 2012 : http : //ac2012.com/about-aleister-crowley-2012/ [ ac2012.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Christian conception of sin as the will of the natural man ... is the basis of all internal conflict -- of moral insanity.
" -- Aleister CrowleyAleister Crowley's 25 blasphemous quotations:http://ac2012.com/2010/01/05/against-all-gods-of-men/ [ac2012.com]"We realize that Aleister Crowley is dead.
And British.
And, moreover, not running for office.
Nevertheless, we believe that the most effective vote you can cast in 2012 is one for Aleister Crowley.
"Vote Aleister Crowley 2012:http://ac2012.com/about-aleister-crowley-2012/ [ac2012.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30633464</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't what the Irish people want</title>
	<author>thesquire</author>
	<datestamp>1262549460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you saying Ireland has not embraced the Inquisition again [and Islam]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying Ireland has not embraced the Inquisition again [ and Islam ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying Ireland has not embraced the Inquisition again [and Islam]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30625858</id>
	<title>Down With that Sort of Thing</title>
	<author>turgid</author>
	<datestamp>1262425440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A worthy parable is<a href="http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/comedy/watch/v1132855bYDzwXJQ" title="veoh.com">The Passion of St Tibulus</a> [veoh.com].
</p><p>Down with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Passion\_of\_St\_Tibulus" title="wikipedia.org">that sort of thing</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A worthy parable isThe Passion of St Tibulus [ veoh.com ] .
Down with that sort of thing [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A worthy parable isThe Passion of St Tibulus [veoh.com].
Down with that sort of thing [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619150</id>
	<title>Re:yet</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1262363520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it would be awesome if Fianna meant epic in Gaelic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it would be awesome if Fianna meant epic in Gaelic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it would be awesome if Fianna meant epic in Gaelic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619808</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state. They do not even allow religion in schools in any form. I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.</i></p><p>How is it forcing beliefs on you if someone happens to be wearing a cross, a star of David, or a burkha somewhere near you?  The French telling students how to dress based on assumed religious identities associated with clothing and jewelry is discriminatory.</p><p>Maybe I just think a six-pointed star on a chain around my neck makes me look cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right , they have separation of church and state .
They do not even allow religion in schools in any form .
I do n't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.How is it forcing beliefs on you if someone happens to be wearing a cross , a star of David , or a burkha somewhere near you ?
The French telling students how to dress based on assumed religious identities associated with clothing and jewelry is discriminatory.Maybe I just think a six-pointed star on a chain around my neck makes me look cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state.
They do not even allow religion in schools in any form.
I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.How is it forcing beliefs on you if someone happens to be wearing a cross, a star of David, or a burkha somewhere near you?
The French telling students how to dress based on assumed religious identities associated with clothing and jewelry is discriminatory.Maybe I just think a six-pointed star on a chain around my neck makes me look cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617540</id>
	<title>It's all about efficiency</title>
	<author>exley</author>
	<datestamp>1262352180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently the new "laws" actually just prescribe getting blasphemous sites Slashdotted instead of actively taking them down.</p><p>Slashdot... A tool of the oppressor(?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the new " laws " actually just prescribe getting blasphemous sites Slashdotted instead of actively taking them down.Slashdot... A tool of the oppressor ( ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the new "laws" actually just prescribe getting blasphemous sites Slashdotted instead of actively taking them down.Slashdot... A tool of the oppressor(?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619608</id>
	<title>This is the death knell of Catholicism in Ireland</title>
	<author>DiamondGeezer</author>
	<datestamp>1262368980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There will be atheists begging the Catholic Church to sue them for blasphemy. All of this when the stock of the Catholic Church is at its lowest with recent reports on child abuse by Catholic priests and seminarians and the resignations of four bishops as a result.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be atheists begging the Catholic Church to sue them for blasphemy .
All of this when the stock of the Catholic Church is at its lowest with recent reports on child abuse by Catholic priests and seminarians and the resignations of four bishops as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be atheists begging the Catholic Church to sue them for blasphemy.
All of this when the stock of the Catholic Church is at its lowest with recent reports on child abuse by Catholic priests and seminarians and the resignations of four bishops as a result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617742</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1262353500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.</p></div><p>Because your beliefs (or lack thereof) scare them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.Because your beliefs ( or lack thereof ) scare them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.Because your beliefs (or lack thereof) scare them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622230</id>
	<title>Christ on a pogo stick, the Irish must be rich</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1262447580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>25,000 euro fine?  TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND EUROS?  That would make anybody say "God damn!"  You can buy an old house in much of rural America for 25,000 euros.  And not necessarily a fixer-upper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>25,000 euro fine ?
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND EUROS ?
That would make anybody say " God damn !
" You can buy an old house in much of rural America for 25,000 euros .
And not necessarily a fixer-upper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>25,000 euro fine?
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND EUROS?
That would make anybody say "God damn!
"  You can buy an old house in much of rural America for 25,000 euros.
And not necessarily a fixer-upper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620896</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1262429700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect.</p></div><p>That is the first half, but you conveniently neglect to fill in the other half of what religious beliefs are for.</p><p>Yes, you are right, religious beliefs arose out of our innate desire to ask questions and know about cause and effect.  Religious belief came to fruition when man took advantage of those desires to fill them with whatever answers gave them power over that man and others.</p><p>And that is not a good thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect.That is the first half , but you conveniently neglect to fill in the other half of what religious beliefs are for.Yes , you are right , religious beliefs arose out of our innate desire to ask questions and know about cause and effect .
Religious belief came to fruition when man took advantage of those desires to fill them with whatever answers gave them power over that man and others.And that is not a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect.That is the first half, but you conveniently neglect to fill in the other half of what religious beliefs are for.Yes, you are right, religious beliefs arose out of our innate desire to ask questions and know about cause and effect.
Religious belief came to fruition when man took advantage of those desires to fill them with whatever answers gave them power over that man and others.And that is not a good thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617924</id>
	<title>Re:yet</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262354520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fear, cause they might never leave, and show that everlastingness with a change of their name to: Epic Fail. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear , cause they might never leave , and show that everlastingness with a change of their name to : Epic Fail .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear, cause they might never leave, and show that everlastingness with a change of their name to: Epic Fail.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618402</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Chep</author>
	<datestamp>1262357040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a matter of fact, the existence of religions, basic tenets of the primary religions (from the French point of view: Christianity, Judaism and Islam), and keys to their influence insofar as they shaped Europe's history *are* subjects brushed on in French schools (starting at 3rd grade, then repeatedly until the end of High School).  [**]<br><br>Enough to have the clues to "read" our world, but never taught as "stuff one ought to believe in" (though anyone is welcome to borrow books from municipal libraries or free to step into any legal sect's building)<br><br>[**] with a significant exception with Alsace/Moselle (near the German border) which still apply the 1801 (French) Concordate, which specifically (re)bound the French Government with the Holy See. That law has been repealed in 1904 (the State-Church separation law), except in areas which were part of Germany at the time. Yes, I found crosses on pre-school class walls definitely spooky while I lived there with my kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a matter of fact , the existence of religions , basic tenets of the primary religions ( from the French point of view : Christianity , Judaism and Islam ) , and keys to their influence insofar as they shaped Europe 's history * are * subjects brushed on in French schools ( starting at 3rd grade , then repeatedly until the end of High School ) .
[ * * ] Enough to have the clues to " read " our world , but never taught as " stuff one ought to believe in " ( though anyone is welcome to borrow books from municipal libraries or free to step into any legal sect 's building ) [ * * ] with a significant exception with Alsace/Moselle ( near the German border ) which still apply the 1801 ( French ) Concordate , which specifically ( re ) bound the French Government with the Holy See .
That law has been repealed in 1904 ( the State-Church separation law ) , except in areas which were part of Germany at the time .
Yes , I found crosses on pre-school class walls definitely spooky while I lived there with my kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a matter of fact, the existence of religions, basic tenets of the primary religions (from the French point of view: Christianity, Judaism and Islam), and keys to their influence insofar as they shaped Europe's history *are* subjects brushed on in French schools (starting at 3rd grade, then repeatedly until the end of High School).
[**]Enough to have the clues to "read" our world, but never taught as "stuff one ought to believe in" (though anyone is welcome to borrow books from municipal libraries or free to step into any legal sect's building)[**] with a significant exception with Alsace/Moselle (near the German border) which still apply the 1801 (French) Concordate, which specifically (re)bound the French Government with the Holy See.
That law has been repealed in 1904 (the State-Church separation law), except in areas which were part of Germany at the time.
Yes, I found crosses on pre-school class walls definitely spooky while I lived there with my kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618312</id>
	<title>Re:Attention, religious folks.</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1262356560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet."</p><p>Cue the Shia v. Sunni fight over who's the Khufar!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is no god , and Mohammed is his prophet .
" Cue the Shia v. Sunni fight over who 's the Khufar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.
"Cue the Shia v. Sunni fight over who's the Khufar!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619884</id>
	<title>Re:this will be fun</title>
	<author>leifb</author>
	<datestamp>1262372040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while.</i></p><p>Yes, that person may be a laughingstock, but that's really beside the point, isn't it?  The real danger is in the process of litigation itself.</p><p>The accused may be exonerated -- eventually -- but in the mean time, they have to waste time, attention and money on the legal proceedings, being slowly bled dry and subject to additional scrutiny.</p><p>And if you don't think there are people who would be <b>eager</b> to become a laughing stock, in exchange for sufficient publicity or payment...</p><p>This law opens another door for exactly the sort of proxy harassment we've seen from Microsoft for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while.Yes , that person may be a laughingstock , but that 's really beside the point , is n't it ?
The real danger is in the process of litigation itself.The accused may be exonerated -- eventually -- but in the mean time , they have to waste time , attention and money on the legal proceedings , being slowly bled dry and subject to additional scrutiny.And if you do n't think there are people who would be eager to become a laughing stock , in exchange for sufficient publicity or payment...This law opens another door for exactly the sort of proxy harassment we 've seen from Microsoft for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while.Yes, that person may be a laughingstock, but that's really beside the point, isn't it?
The real danger is in the process of litigation itself.The accused may be exonerated -- eventually -- but in the mean time, they have to waste time, attention and money on the legal proceedings, being slowly bled dry and subject to additional scrutiny.And if you don't think there are people who would be eager to become a laughing stock, in exchange for sufficient publicity or payment...This law opens another door for exactly the sort of proxy harassment we've seen from Microsoft for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574</id>
	<title>this will be fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262352420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they banned life of brian making it one of the most pirated films in the 80s in ireland.  every body i knew had a copy.</p><p>banning something in ireland automatically encourages it.</p><p>we'll probably need a blasphemy per comment counting system.</p><p>the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they banned life of brian making it one of the most pirated films in the 80s in ireland .
every body i knew had a copy.banning something in ireland automatically encourages it.we 'll probably need a blasphemy per comment counting system.the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they banned life of brian making it one of the most pirated films in the 80s in ireland.
every body i knew had a copy.banning something in ireland automatically encourages it.we'll probably need a blasphemy per comment counting system.the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622602</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Lars512</author>
	<datestamp>1262450400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.</p></div><p>Naturally, and there is a deep philosophic tradition which focuses on these questions. I'm deeply suspicious about the "solutions" to these problems chosen by traditional religions. Whilst I agree that in most cases they evolved through argument and popularity over long time periods, they carry far too much arbitrary baggage. Modern philosophy seems better at getting to the core of the idea and discarding the somewhat arbitrary baggage along for the ride.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for , but that does n't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method can not be applied.Naturally , and there is a deep philosophic tradition which focuses on these questions .
I 'm deeply suspicious about the " solutions " to these problems chosen by traditional religions .
Whilst I agree that in most cases they evolved through argument and popularity over long time periods , they carry far too much arbitrary baggage .
Modern philosophy seems better at getting to the core of the idea and discarding the somewhat arbitrary baggage along for the ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied.Naturally, and there is a deep philosophic tradition which focuses on these questions.
I'm deeply suspicious about the "solutions" to these problems chosen by traditional religions.
Whilst I agree that in most cases they evolved through argument and popularity over long time periods, they carry far too much arbitrary baggage.
Modern philosophy seems better at getting to the core of the idea and discarding the somewhat arbitrary baggage along for the ride.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618998</id>
	<title>Re:Catch me now!</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1262361900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They all breed enough as it is, you don't need to encourage them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They all breed enough as it is , you do n't need to encourage them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They all breed enough as it is, you don't need to encourage them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617944</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>Emphron</author>
	<datestamp>1262354640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well the intent of the new law is to outlaw:
 "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

So the stated objective is not to require you to believe anything, but to require us all to treat other people's beliefs with respect.

But whatever the stated intent, it is a very silly law. I am a Christian, in fact, an unpaid minister in the Anglican communion. But I do not want this law, I do not need its protection - and neither does my faith community. I am not even sure that I would not be breaking this law every time I went to Mass, because my recitation of the creed could be considered deeply offensive to Jews and Moslems.

The point is, I think, that whatever people may or may not say, the choice about wether I am outraged remains entirely  mine. If you speak things about Jesus that I consider offensive, it is up to me to decide whether I am outraged, or whether I react with compassion and understanding. Since Jesus famously forgave the people crucifying him, I am fairly sure what reaction He would expect of me.

This legislation seeks to penalise *you* for any immaturity in *my* response to your speech. That seems absurd and utterly unworkable.
If a prosecution is ever brought, it will play out in the European Court of Human Rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the intent of the new law is to outlaw : " publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion , thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion , with some defences permitted " .
So the stated objective is not to require you to believe anything , but to require us all to treat other people 's beliefs with respect .
But whatever the stated intent , it is a very silly law .
I am a Christian , in fact , an unpaid minister in the Anglican communion .
But I do not want this law , I do not need its protection - and neither does my faith community .
I am not even sure that I would not be breaking this law every time I went to Mass , because my recitation of the creed could be considered deeply offensive to Jews and Moslems .
The point is , I think , that whatever people may or may not say , the choice about wether I am outraged remains entirely mine .
If you speak things about Jesus that I consider offensive , it is up to me to decide whether I am outraged , or whether I react with compassion and understanding .
Since Jesus famously forgave the people crucifying him , I am fairly sure what reaction He would expect of me .
This legislation seeks to penalise * you * for any immaturity in * my * response to your speech .
That seems absurd and utterly unworkable .
If a prosecution is ever brought , it will play out in the European Court of Human Rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the intent of the new law is to outlaw:
 "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".
So the stated objective is not to require you to believe anything, but to require us all to treat other people's beliefs with respect.
But whatever the stated intent, it is a very silly law.
I am a Christian, in fact, an unpaid minister in the Anglican communion.
But I do not want this law, I do not need its protection - and neither does my faith community.
I am not even sure that I would not be breaking this law every time I went to Mass, because my recitation of the creed could be considered deeply offensive to Jews and Moslems.
The point is, I think, that whatever people may or may not say, the choice about wether I am outraged remains entirely  mine.
If you speak things about Jesus that I consider offensive, it is up to me to decide whether I am outraged, or whether I react with compassion and understanding.
Since Jesus famously forgave the people crucifying him, I am fairly sure what reaction He would expect of me.
This legislation seeks to penalise *you* for any immaturity in *my* response to your speech.
That seems absurd and utterly unworkable.
If a prosecution is ever brought, it will play out in the European Court of Human Rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617958</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>mrphoton</author>
	<datestamp>1262354700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, I would acknowledge that may be a few lessons on religion would be fine.  Much the way sex education is taught.  But I think any more than that and it risks turning in to indoctrination.  There are so many wonderful and useful things our kids should be learning about, that there is no way to justify spending more time on it.  I find the growth in state sponsored religious schools (in the UK) a very worrying trend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , I would acknowledge that may be a few lessons on religion would be fine .
Much the way sex education is taught .
But I think any more than that and it risks turning in to indoctrination .
There are so many wonderful and useful things our kids should be learning about , that there is no way to justify spending more time on it .
I find the growth in state sponsored religious schools ( in the UK ) a very worrying trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, I would acknowledge that may be a few lessons on religion would be fine.
Much the way sex education is taught.
But I think any more than that and it risks turning in to indoctrination.
There are so many wonderful and useful things our kids should be learning about, that there is no way to justify spending more time on it.
I find the growth in state sponsored religious schools (in the UK) a very worrying trend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620494</id>
	<title>Re:Another step backwards</title>
	<author>redhotgranny</author>
	<datestamp>1262423520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, it must be a competition between countries; Which country is the first back in Middle Ages?</p><p>* Ireland: freedom of speech, gone<br>* Australia: big fricking firewall<br>* US: War mongering and Guantanamo.. etc.<br>*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... please feel to add your country of choice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , it must be a competition between countries ; Which country is the first back in Middle Ages ?
* Ireland : freedom of speech , gone * Australia : big fricking firewall * US : War mongering and Guantanamo. .
etc. * ... please feel to add your country of choice .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, it must be a competition between countries; Which country is the first back in Middle Ages?
* Ireland: freedom of speech, gone* Australia: big fricking firewall* US: War mongering and Guantanamo..
etc.* ... please feel to add your country of choice ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346</id>
	<title>Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1262356740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a victimless crime, in Ireland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a victimless crime , in Ireland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a victimless crime, in Ireland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621130</id>
	<title>Re:This has to be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262433600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...except that this law has nothing to do with government's enforcement of religion, and everything to do with the protection of persons from things "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred". Surely you can see the difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...except that this law has nothing to do with government 's enforcement of religion , and everything to do with the protection of persons from things " grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred " .
Surely you can see the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...except that this law has nothing to do with government's enforcement of religion, and everything to do with the protection of persons from things "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred".
Surely you can see the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620152</id>
	<title>Re:I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262375580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that it is the solemn right of the majority to enact any law regardless of how dumb others might find it. Now if there isn't universal representation, like in some Middle Eastern countries for example, then I think we should have a right to be concerned. The people of Ireland have the opportunity like in any other democratic country to force a change if the majority opposes the law. The only reason why the law exists is because the majority elected officials have the view that blasphemy towards a religion is a bad thing in their opinion. Now if they were elected for those views, then they will be elected again, but if not, then they will be replaced and there will be an opportunity for the laws to be changed. I will not yell and scream and carry on that I disagree with it; I'll just respect the views of others and hope that majority will eventually see how this law cannot work in the modern world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that it is the solemn right of the majority to enact any law regardless of how dumb others might find it .
Now if there is n't universal representation , like in some Middle Eastern countries for example , then I think we should have a right to be concerned .
The people of Ireland have the opportunity like in any other democratic country to force a change if the majority opposes the law .
The only reason why the law exists is because the majority elected officials have the view that blasphemy towards a religion is a bad thing in their opinion .
Now if they were elected for those views , then they will be elected again , but if not , then they will be replaced and there will be an opportunity for the laws to be changed .
I will not yell and scream and carry on that I disagree with it ; I 'll just respect the views of others and hope that majority will eventually see how this law can not work in the modern world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that it is the solemn right of the majority to enact any law regardless of how dumb others might find it.
Now if there isn't universal representation, like in some Middle Eastern countries for example, then I think we should have a right to be concerned.
The people of Ireland have the opportunity like in any other democratic country to force a change if the majority opposes the law.
The only reason why the law exists is because the majority elected officials have the view that blasphemy towards a religion is a bad thing in their opinion.
Now if they were elected for those views, then they will be elected again, but if not, then they will be replaced and there will be an opportunity for the laws to be changed.
I will not yell and scream and carry on that I disagree with it; I'll just respect the views of others and hope that majority will eventually see how this law cannot work in the modern world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620768</id>
	<title>Re:well god dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262427540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, as one of millions of athiests out there, I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public, and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason. There, fixed that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as one of millions of athiests out there , I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public , and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason .
There , fixed that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as one of millions of athiests out there, I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public, and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason.
There, fixed that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620912</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>Sique</author>
	<datestamp>1262430120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basicly it says: The Bible is blasphemic (anti-phoenicean). Luther's writings are blasphemic (anti-catholic), the Pope is blasphemic (anti-protestant), the whole U.S. is blasphemic (anti-communist) etc.pp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basicly it says : The Bible is blasphemic ( anti-phoenicean ) .
Luther 's writings are blasphemic ( anti-catholic ) , the Pope is blasphemic ( anti-protestant ) , the whole U.S. is blasphemic ( anti-communist ) etc.pp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basicly it says: The Bible is blasphemic (anti-phoenicean).
Luther's writings are blasphemic (anti-catholic), the Pope is blasphemic (anti-protestant), the whole U.S. is blasphemic (anti-communist) etc.pp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620754</id>
	<title>Re:well god dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262427300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you didn't write that in Massachusetts. Blasphemy is still a crime there too:</p><p>"Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars"</p><p>http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you did n't write that in Massachusetts .
Blasphemy is still a crime there too : " Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying , cursing or contumeliously reproaching God , his creation , government or final judging of the world , or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost , or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule , the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars " http : //www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you didn't write that in Massachusetts.
Blasphemy is still a crime there too:"Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars"http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621370</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1262437080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted.</p></div><p>Yeah, under a government run by the same yahoo that was last seen crawling to Rome on his hands and knees to apologise for child abuse by Catholic clergymen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted.Yeah , under a government run by the same yahoo that was last seen crawling to Rome on his hands and knees to apologise for child abuse by Catholic clergymen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted.Yeah, under a government run by the same yahoo that was last seen crawling to Rome on his hands and knees to apologise for child abuse by Catholic clergymen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620368</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>gwait</author>
	<datestamp>1262465280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because religions that don't force their beliefs on others eventually die off. It's a darwinism thing..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because religions that do n't force their beliefs on others eventually die off .
It 's a darwinism thing. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because religions that don't force their beliefs on others eventually die off.
It's a darwinism thing..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621498</id>
	<title>Re:I can't blaspheme?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262439480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Irish are a bunch of funny talking, stone kissing, Lucky Charms eating faggot alcoholics who like to wear green clothing.</p><p>Fuck all Irish and their imaginary, magical friend who lives in the sky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before and I 'll say it again .
The Irish are a bunch of funny talking , stone kissing , Lucky Charms eating faggot alcoholics who like to wear green clothing.Fuck all Irish and their imaginary , magical friend who lives in the sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The Irish are a bunch of funny talking, stone kissing, Lucky Charms eating faggot alcoholics who like to wear green clothing.Fuck all Irish and their imaginary, magical friend who lives in the sky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30626076</id>
	<title>Re:Proof of god's non-existence</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1262426940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the void became aware of itself a split happened into two, consciousness and existence. Two things that either are or they are not but they are symbiotic, given their origin. What exist in consciousness and in existence, are variables. Things change in the content of both. If you are all that exist, how do you know you will continue to exist? You must expand, so to know new and different. The religion of survival, we all have it, even god, where it comes from.</p><p>A way of knowing you exist, is to create life that will allow viewing and experiencing the contents of existence and consciousness in part, blind to the whole. We are but recorders that will someday report back to the whole. And what of our purpose, each one of us? To contribute to the insurance of survival. So of what use are you to the whole, if you don't? Why bring or allow you back if you are not going to help survival insurance? When you die and return to the whole, you judge yourself.<br>The survival instinct, built into all living things. Religion's a word that wouldn't exist without separation of beliefs. But all religions know survival.<br>The closer you are to knowing what is, the more control you have over what can be.</p><p>Made in god's image, we are. But we are in part, not whole. So it is even written, the flaw of god. The split of the void, birth of god. But purity whole is only the void. All outside is in part, including god. So sin but like god, as nothing is something to avoid!</p><p>Whats to believe?<br>Quoting something found on the internet.</p><p>"What is the point of Jesus' grim story about a vacant house being occupied by an evil force? It is not enough to banish evil thoughts and habits. We must also fill the void with God who is the source of all that is good and upright. Augustine said that our lives have a God-shaped void which only God can fill satisfactory. If we attempt to leave it vacant or to fill it with something else, we will be worse in the end. What do you fill the void in your life with? Jesus makes it clear that there are no neutral parties. We are either for Jesus or against him, for the kingdom of God or against it. There are two kingdoms in opposition to one another&#226;" the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness under the rule of Satan. If we disobey God's word, we open to door to the power of sin and Satan. If we want to live in freedom from sin and Satan, then our house must be occupied by Jesus where he is enthroned as Lord and Savior. Do you know the peace and security of a life submitted to God and his word?"</p><p>Every equation has two sides.</p><p>According to the equation above you can farm evil forces, make them grow.<br>Its really quite simple you see, just banish evil and leave a void.</p><p>Its actually easier. lazier than otherwise, as its at least one step less.<br>You should know this, perhaps not, for to believe you are a self professed sinner, in part, not whole, how would you fully know?</p><p>But there is also something else made clear in this line of thought and regardless of where you read it. Perhaps something of a contradiction of god, something not hidden, but just not ever seen.</p><p>Expel an evil and leave a void, don't fill it at all.<br>If the void is evil, then you failed to expel.<br>So try again, again and again, until you have nothing left at all.<br>You will be void, forever evil yourself if you believe evil is void.</p><p>The void contains not good nor evil, no light or darkness, its not even neutral, not for or against anything, there is not even emptiness, its just void, absent of anything and all. That's why its called "void".</p><p>Imagine yourself inside a translucent sphere, look around, try to see the whole, though you never will. But outside the sphere and from far enough away, you can see the whole sphere.<br>And so it is from the void POV regarding it's child named god.</p><p>For those who'd like to farm evil, via leaving a void, you have no guarantee you will succeed.<br>You may instead, from a void POV, be fully seen for what you are, just a blind judgmental fool or perhaps that's just a child named god.</p><p>Wanna know what I see?<br>You don't really believe!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the void became aware of itself a split happened into two , consciousness and existence .
Two things that either are or they are not but they are symbiotic , given their origin .
What exist in consciousness and in existence , are variables .
Things change in the content of both .
If you are all that exist , how do you know you will continue to exist ?
You must expand , so to know new and different .
The religion of survival , we all have it , even god , where it comes from.A way of knowing you exist , is to create life that will allow viewing and experiencing the contents of existence and consciousness in part , blind to the whole .
We are but recorders that will someday report back to the whole .
And what of our purpose , each one of us ?
To contribute to the insurance of survival .
So of what use are you to the whole , if you do n't ?
Why bring or allow you back if you are not going to help survival insurance ?
When you die and return to the whole , you judge yourself.The survival instinct , built into all living things .
Religion 's a word that would n't exist without separation of beliefs .
But all religions know survival.The closer you are to knowing what is , the more control you have over what can be.Made in god 's image , we are .
But we are in part , not whole .
So it is even written , the flaw of god .
The split of the void , birth of god .
But purity whole is only the void .
All outside is in part , including god .
So sin but like god , as nothing is something to avoid ! Whats to believe ? Quoting something found on the internet .
" What is the point of Jesus ' grim story about a vacant house being occupied by an evil force ?
It is not enough to banish evil thoughts and habits .
We must also fill the void with God who is the source of all that is good and upright .
Augustine said that our lives have a God-shaped void which only God can fill satisfactory .
If we attempt to leave it vacant or to fill it with something else , we will be worse in the end .
What do you fill the void in your life with ?
Jesus makes it clear that there are no neutral parties .
We are either for Jesus or against him , for the kingdom of God or against it .
There are two kingdoms in opposition to one another   " the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness under the rule of Satan .
If we disobey God 's word , we open to door to the power of sin and Satan .
If we want to live in freedom from sin and Satan , then our house must be occupied by Jesus where he is enthroned as Lord and Savior .
Do you know the peace and security of a life submitted to God and his word ?
" Every equation has two sides.According to the equation above you can farm evil forces , make them grow.Its really quite simple you see , just banish evil and leave a void.Its actually easier .
lazier than otherwise , as its at least one step less.You should know this , perhaps not , for to believe you are a self professed sinner , in part , not whole , how would you fully know ? But there is also something else made clear in this line of thought and regardless of where you read it .
Perhaps something of a contradiction of god , something not hidden , but just not ever seen.Expel an evil and leave a void , do n't fill it at all.If the void is evil , then you failed to expel.So try again , again and again , until you have nothing left at all.You will be void , forever evil yourself if you believe evil is void.The void contains not good nor evil , no light or darkness , its not even neutral , not for or against anything , there is not even emptiness , its just void , absent of anything and all .
That 's why its called " void " .Imagine yourself inside a translucent sphere , look around , try to see the whole , though you never will .
But outside the sphere and from far enough away , you can see the whole sphere.And so it is from the void POV regarding it 's child named god.For those who 'd like to farm evil , via leaving a void , you have no guarantee you will succeed.You may instead , from a void POV , be fully seen for what you are , just a blind judgmental fool or perhaps that 's just a child named god.Wan na know what I see ? You do n't really believe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the void became aware of itself a split happened into two, consciousness and existence.
Two things that either are or they are not but they are symbiotic, given their origin.
What exist in consciousness and in existence, are variables.
Things change in the content of both.
If you are all that exist, how do you know you will continue to exist?
You must expand, so to know new and different.
The religion of survival, we all have it, even god, where it comes from.A way of knowing you exist, is to create life that will allow viewing and experiencing the contents of existence and consciousness in part, blind to the whole.
We are but recorders that will someday report back to the whole.
And what of our purpose, each one of us?
To contribute to the insurance of survival.
So of what use are you to the whole, if you don't?
Why bring or allow you back if you are not going to help survival insurance?
When you die and return to the whole, you judge yourself.The survival instinct, built into all living things.
Religion's a word that wouldn't exist without separation of beliefs.
But all religions know survival.The closer you are to knowing what is, the more control you have over what can be.Made in god's image, we are.
But we are in part, not whole.
So it is even written, the flaw of god.
The split of the void, birth of god.
But purity whole is only the void.
All outside is in part, including god.
So sin but like god, as nothing is something to avoid!Whats to believe?Quoting something found on the internet.
"What is the point of Jesus' grim story about a vacant house being occupied by an evil force?
It is not enough to banish evil thoughts and habits.
We must also fill the void with God who is the source of all that is good and upright.
Augustine said that our lives have a God-shaped void which only God can fill satisfactory.
If we attempt to leave it vacant or to fill it with something else, we will be worse in the end.
What do you fill the void in your life with?
Jesus makes it clear that there are no neutral parties.
We are either for Jesus or against him, for the kingdom of God or against it.
There are two kingdoms in opposition to one anotherâ" the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness under the rule of Satan.
If we disobey God's word, we open to door to the power of sin and Satan.
If we want to live in freedom from sin and Satan, then our house must be occupied by Jesus where he is enthroned as Lord and Savior.
Do you know the peace and security of a life submitted to God and his word?
"Every equation has two sides.According to the equation above you can farm evil forces, make them grow.Its really quite simple you see, just banish evil and leave a void.Its actually easier.
lazier than otherwise, as its at least one step less.You should know this, perhaps not, for to believe you are a self professed sinner, in part, not whole, how would you fully know?But there is also something else made clear in this line of thought and regardless of where you read it.
Perhaps something of a contradiction of god, something not hidden, but just not ever seen.Expel an evil and leave a void, don't fill it at all.If the void is evil, then you failed to expel.So try again, again and again, until you have nothing left at all.You will be void, forever evil yourself if you believe evil is void.The void contains not good nor evil, no light or darkness, its not even neutral, not for or against anything, there is not even emptiness, its just void, absent of anything and all.
That's why its called "void".Imagine yourself inside a translucent sphere, look around, try to see the whole, though you never will.
But outside the sphere and from far enough away, you can see the whole sphere.And so it is from the void POV regarding it's child named god.For those who'd like to farm evil, via leaving a void, you have no guarantee you will succeed.You may instead, from a void POV, be fully seen for what you are, just a blind judgmental fool or perhaps that's just a child named god.Wanna know what I see?You don't really believe!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623696</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of occasions wher...</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1262456340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.</p></div><p>Because you are a misguided heathen and must be shown the way. Or you will be folded, spindled and mutilated.. ( zappa reference, for those kids around here )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.Because you are a misguided heathen and must be shown the way .
Or you will be folded , spindled and mutilated.. ( zappa reference , for those kids around here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.Because you are a misguided heathen and must be shown the way.
Or you will be folded, spindled and mutilated.. ( zappa reference, for those kids around here )
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980</id>
	<title>Re:Blasphemy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262373360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How sure are you?<br><br>"It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted"."<br><br>It says ANY religion. So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland? How about Scientology? Is there are list somewhere?<br><br>There are a fair number of religions that have a high proportion of adherents who are easily outraged.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How sure are you ?
" It defines blasphemy as " publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion , thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion , with some defences permitted " .
" It says ANY religion .
So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland ?
How about Scientology ?
Is there are list somewhere ? There are a fair number of religions that have a high proportion of adherents who are easily outraged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How sure are you?
"It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".
"It says ANY religion.
So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland?
How about Scientology?
Is there are list somewhere?There are a fair number of religions that have a high proportion of adherents who are easily outraged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30628160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30638860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30627606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30630300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30637320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30633464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30663838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30641742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30626088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30637008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30626076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30625068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30679416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_233249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30626076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30637320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30627606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30625068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30663838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619374
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622602
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620168
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30638860
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30623470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30626088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30628160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619980
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30629220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620912
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620798
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624430
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30679416
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30630300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622348
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621334
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30641742
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30633464
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624692
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30622816
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30620162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30624114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30637008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30619150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30618876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30617924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30621510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_233249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_233249.30625942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
