<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_08_0245200</id>
	<title>Full Body Scanners Violate Child Porn Laws</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262975580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gandhi\_2 writes <i>"The Guardian has a story about an ongoing legal battle over the use of full body scanners in the UK. The Protection of Children Act 1978, includes provisions in which it is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws">illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image' of a child</a>... which a full body scanner does."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>gandhi \ _2 writes " The Guardian has a story about an ongoing legal battle over the use of full body scanners in the UK .
The Protection of Children Act 1978 , includes provisions in which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image ' of a child... which a full body scanner does .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gandhi\_2 writes "The Guardian has a story about an ongoing legal battle over the use of full body scanners in the UK.
The Protection of Children Act 1978, includes provisions in which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image' of a child... which a full body scanner does.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696728</id>
	<title>Won't stop the rectum bombs</title>
	<author>mldi</author>
	<datestamp>1262974860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do these catch that the old ones didn't? You know, the ones that made more of a chalky outline of things instead of a full-color nude shot (inverted)?
<br> <br>
How on earth will this stop the ones who cram the explosives up their ass?
<br> <br>
This is a completely ineffective trampling on liberty. What a mess. What's next? Standing on a conveyor belt with everyone else, bent over, cheeks spread? Oh, it's for security! We have to <b>protect</b> you!
<br> <br>
The chances of being killed in a terrorist act with what's in place is less than the chance of being struck by lightning, by a long ways.
<br> <br>
Lastly, does any of those asshats realize that when they do this, terrorism wins? That is, they successfully terrorised you enough to forgo the liberties everyone fights so hard to keep.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do these catch that the old ones did n't ?
You know , the ones that made more of a chalky outline of things instead of a full-color nude shot ( inverted ) ?
How on earth will this stop the ones who cram the explosives up their ass ?
This is a completely ineffective trampling on liberty .
What a mess .
What 's next ?
Standing on a conveyor belt with everyone else , bent over , cheeks spread ?
Oh , it 's for security !
We have to protect you !
The chances of being killed in a terrorist act with what 's in place is less than the chance of being struck by lightning , by a long ways .
Lastly , does any of those asshats realize that when they do this , terrorism wins ?
That is , they successfully terrorised you enough to forgo the liberties everyone fights so hard to keep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do these catch that the old ones didn't?
You know, the ones that made more of a chalky outline of things instead of a full-color nude shot (inverted)?
How on earth will this stop the ones who cram the explosives up their ass?
This is a completely ineffective trampling on liberty.
What a mess.
What's next?
Standing on a conveyor belt with everyone else, bent over, cheeks spread?
Oh, it's for security!
We have to protect you!
The chances of being killed in a terrorist act with what's in place is less than the chance of being struck by lightning, by a long ways.
Lastly, does any of those asshats realize that when they do this, terrorism wins?
That is, they successfully terrorised you enough to forgo the liberties everyone fights so hard to keep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691856</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1262942160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bestiality is illegal"</p><p>Not in several states, actually. Washington was one, I think. Florida is another, IIRC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bestiality is illegal " Not in several states , actually .
Washington was one , I think .
Florida is another , IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bestiality is illegal"Not in several states, actually.
Washington was one, I think.
Florida is another, IIRC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</id>
	<title>Odd timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east , thru Europe , all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692434</id>
	<title>Herodotus</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1262949600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The authorities have assured us that the images from these scanners cannot be stored, masturbated over, taken away or sold on by airport security thugs. If anyone wants to believe that then let them do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The authorities have assured us that the images from these scanners can not be stored , masturbated over , taken away or sold on by airport security thugs .
If anyone wants to believe that then let them do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authorities have assured us that the images from these scanners cannot be stored, masturbated over, taken away or sold on by airport security thugs.
If anyone wants to believe that then let them do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695746</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>spgass</author>
	<datestamp>1262971080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too was <a href="http://lowtechtimes.com/2010/01/06/airport-security/" title="lowtechtimes.com" rel="nofollow">wondering</a> [lowtechtimes.com] why there hasn't been much discussion on sniffers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too was wondering [ lowtechtimes.com ] why there has n't been much discussion on sniffers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too was wondering [lowtechtimes.com] why there hasn't been much discussion on sniffers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691568</id>
	<title>AndyMo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's not sexual in nature or intended for sexual arousal, it's not porn. People of any age can be legally pictured nude in art, medical images, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's not sexual in nature or intended for sexual arousal , it 's not porn .
People of any age can be legally pictured nude in art , medical images , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's not sexual in nature or intended for sexual arousal, it's not porn.
People of any age can be legally pictured nude in art, medical images, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696894</id>
	<title>brain burnout</title>
	<author>drunkenkatori</author>
	<datestamp>1262975520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually a carefully crafted plan to burn out the brains of knee-jerk anti-intellectuals as they rant in circles about protecting children while fighting terrorism.  I patiently await seeing Glenn Beck self destruct on TV like the androids sabotaged by Spock on Star Trek.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually a carefully crafted plan to burn out the brains of knee-jerk anti-intellectuals as they rant in circles about protecting children while fighting terrorism .
I patiently await seeing Glenn Beck self destruct on TV like the androids sabotaged by Spock on Star Trek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually a carefully crafted plan to burn out the brains of knee-jerk anti-intellectuals as they rant in circles about protecting children while fighting terrorism.
I patiently await seeing Glenn Beck self destruct on TV like the androids sabotaged by Spock on Star Trek.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398</id>
	<title>Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>ramsun</author>
	<datestamp>1262893140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is ridiculous. Child porn laws need to differentiate between nude images and obscene/exploitative images. Hopefully this security debate will fuel a rethink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ridiculous .
Child porn laws need to differentiate between nude images and obscene/exploitative images .
Hopefully this security debate will fuel a rethink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is ridiculous.
Child porn laws need to differentiate between nude images and obscene/exploitative images.
Hopefully this security debate will fuel a rethink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700244</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1262946060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree. But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience. People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.</p></div><p>Yes, but the converse isn't true.  Viewing child nudity doesn't turn a non-pedophile into a pedophile, and that's the point relevant to the present debate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times , and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders , I can tell you one thing : unlike 'regular ' porn , child porn plays to an entirely different audience .
People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.Yes , but the converse is n't true .
Viewing child nudity does n't turn a non-pedophile into a pedophile , and that 's the point relevant to the present debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience.
People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.Yes, but the converse isn't true.
Viewing child nudity doesn't turn a non-pedophile into a pedophile, and that's the point relevant to the present debate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693132</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1262958600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree. But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience. People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.</p></div><p>I know this wasn't what you were getting at, but this is precisely why the definition of child porn should be very narrowly drawn.  Pedophiles may find the sunday paper underwear ads erotic, but we can't go around banning them.  The point should be whether there was any harm to the child involved in the production, not how turned on the viewer/consumer gets by looking at it.  In most cases, pictures/videos of simple nudity should <i>not</i> be illegal to possess.
<br> <br>
The real intent of these modern child porn laws is to punish people for having thoughts we're not comfortable with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times , and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders , I can tell you one thing : unlike 'regular ' porn , child porn plays to an entirely different audience .
People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.I know this was n't what you were getting at , but this is precisely why the definition of child porn should be very narrowly drawn .
Pedophiles may find the sunday paper underwear ads erotic , but we ca n't go around banning them .
The point should be whether there was any harm to the child involved in the production , not how turned on the viewer/consumer gets by looking at it .
In most cases , pictures/videos of simple nudity should not be illegal to possess .
The real intent of these modern child porn laws is to punish people for having thoughts we 're not comfortable with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience.
People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.I know this wasn't what you were getting at, but this is precisely why the definition of child porn should be very narrowly drawn.
Pedophiles may find the sunday paper underwear ads erotic, but we can't go around banning them.
The point should be whether there was any harm to the child involved in the production, not how turned on the viewer/consumer gets by looking at it.
In most cases, pictures/videos of simple nudity should not be illegal to possess.
The real intent of these modern child porn laws is to punish people for having thoughts we're not comfortable with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691484</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262894280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Wow, this is kind of like when the unstoppble force meets the immovable object.</i></p><p>I'm sure the solution will be to have TSA officers carefully gird children with special lead loin cloths to cover their naughty bits before they are put through the scanner.</p><p>I missed the boat on buying stock in full-body scanner companies, but I may still be able to make a killing on the lead bathing suit manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , this is kind of like when the unstoppble force meets the immovable object.I 'm sure the solution will be to have TSA officers carefully gird children with special lead loin cloths to cover their naughty bits before they are put through the scanner.I missed the boat on buying stock in full-body scanner companies , but I may still be able to make a killing on the lead bathing suit manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, this is kind of like when the unstoppble force meets the immovable object.I'm sure the solution will be to have TSA officers carefully gird children with special lead loin cloths to cover their naughty bits before they are put through the scanner.I missed the boat on buying stock in full-body scanner companies, but I may still be able to make a killing on the lead bathing suit manufacturers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691882</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>Arterion</author>
	<datestamp>1262942340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't it be more like Sovereign Glue meets Universal Solvent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't it be more like Sovereign Glue meets Universal Solvent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't it be more like Sovereign Glue meets Universal Solvent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694054</id>
	<title>Re:Massive overreatctions</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1262964720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you step into a car either you are driving and have significant control over your fate, or you know the driver and can assess your safety from there. At worst your fate depends on three other people in the car, all of whom you can largely determine yourself how much of a risk they are. In a plane, you have little to no control over your fate, and your safety depends on hundreds of people, most of whom you will never talk to. Planes aren't designed to take much more than what they handle in a typical flight, so they are easy to take down, and unlike a car crash the survival rate of a plane crash isn't an optimistic thought when you're in one.<br> <br>

That said, reducing car accidents is still important, and the security theater is a bit over the top, but I do think these body scanners are a good idea. Assuming you don't have a problem with your doctor seeing you naked, clearly we can train people so they can view these scanner images without complaints.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you step into a car either you are driving and have significant control over your fate , or you know the driver and can assess your safety from there .
At worst your fate depends on three other people in the car , all of whom you can largely determine yourself how much of a risk they are .
In a plane , you have little to no control over your fate , and your safety depends on hundreds of people , most of whom you will never talk to .
Planes are n't designed to take much more than what they handle in a typical flight , so they are easy to take down , and unlike a car crash the survival rate of a plane crash is n't an optimistic thought when you 're in one .
That said , reducing car accidents is still important , and the security theater is a bit over the top , but I do think these body scanners are a good idea .
Assuming you do n't have a problem with your doctor seeing you naked , clearly we can train people so they can view these scanner images without complaints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you step into a car either you are driving and have significant control over your fate, or you know the driver and can assess your safety from there.
At worst your fate depends on three other people in the car, all of whom you can largely determine yourself how much of a risk they are.
In a plane, you have little to no control over your fate, and your safety depends on hundreds of people, most of whom you will never talk to.
Planes aren't designed to take much more than what they handle in a typical flight, so they are easy to take down, and unlike a car crash the survival rate of a plane crash isn't an optimistic thought when you're in one.
That said, reducing car accidents is still important, and the security theater is a bit over the top, but I do think these body scanners are a good idea.
Assuming you don't have a problem with your doctor seeing you naked, clearly we can train people so they can view these scanner images without complaints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30699370</id>
	<title>About time</title>
	<author>minion</author>
	<datestamp>1262942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The Protection of Children Act 1978, includes provisions in which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image' of a child... which a full body scanner does."</i> <br> <br>

I'm glad that one of these stupid "think of the children" laws is finally biting them. We've made too many regulations with the "think of the children" argument.<br> <br>One of my personal pet peeves, is the booster seat, required in the US, for riders under the age of 8. I think there is dirty politics at play, but aside from that, it would have been much less burdensome on the population to simply require that new cars have adjustable seat belts, and grandfather in existing cars. Instead, they require the purchase of these seats for every rider. No longer can the coach of a child's sports team take the team to get ice cream after a game, without having a booster seat for every kid.<br> <br> Its a very freedom limiting regulation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Protection of Children Act 1978 , includes provisions in which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image ' of a child... which a full body scanner does .
" I 'm glad that one of these stupid " think of the children " laws is finally biting them .
We 've made too many regulations with the " think of the children " argument .
One of my personal pet peeves , is the booster seat , required in the US , for riders under the age of 8 .
I think there is dirty politics at play , but aside from that , it would have been much less burdensome on the population to simply require that new cars have adjustable seat belts , and grandfather in existing cars .
Instead , they require the purchase of these seats for every rider .
No longer can the coach of a child 's sports team take the team to get ice cream after a game , without having a booster seat for every kid .
Its a very freedom limiting regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Protection of Children Act 1978, includes provisions in which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image' of a child... which a full body scanner does.
"  

I'm glad that one of these stupid "think of the children" laws is finally biting them.
We've made too many regulations with the "think of the children" argument.
One of my personal pet peeves, is the booster seat, required in the US, for riders under the age of 8.
I think there is dirty politics at play, but aside from that, it would have been much less burdensome on the population to simply require that new cars have adjustable seat belts, and grandfather in existing cars.
Instead, they require the purchase of these seats for every rider.
No longer can the coach of a child's sports team take the team to get ice cream after a game, without having a booster seat for every kid.
Its a very freedom limiting regulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691506</id>
	<title>I understand they're exempting people under 18</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1262980800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Perfect.  There have been suicide bombers younger than that. I feel much safer now...if perhaps a tad undignified. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perfect .
There have been suicide bombers younger than that .
I feel much safer now...if perhaps a tad undignified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Perfect.
There have been suicide bombers younger than that.
I feel much safer now...if perhaps a tad undignified. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691414</id>
	<title>Now will somebody...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>please think of the adults!</htmltext>
<tokenext>please think of the adults !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please think of the adults!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693018</id>
	<title>"They who can give up essential liberty to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262957280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."<br>--Benjamin Franklin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety , deserve neither liberty nor safety .
" --Benjamin Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"--Benjamin Franklin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692224</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>ramsun</author>
	<datestamp>1262947020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>baby pictures. Parents think they're cute. The subjects, not so much.</p></div><p>And outlawing such pictures by labeling them pedophilia is your solution?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>baby pictures .
Parents think they 're cute .
The subjects , not so much.And outlawing such pictures by labeling them pedophilia is your solution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>baby pictures.
Parents think they're cute.
The subjects, not so much.And outlawing such pictures by labeling them pedophilia is your solution?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694618</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262967120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought we already did that - they're called airplanes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we already did that - they 're called airplanes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we already did that - they're called airplanes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700432</id>
	<title>Re:All this talk of the pictures ... radiation?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262946960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't know why this keeps getting overshadowed and forgotten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't know why this keeps getting overshadowed and forgotten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't know why this keeps getting overshadowed and forgotten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691720</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262983860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I so hope my theory concerning that problem is right and they annihilate each other at contact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I so hope my theory concerning that problem is right and they annihilate each other at contact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I so hope my theory concerning that problem is right and they annihilate each other at contact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693452</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>GrBear</author>
	<datestamp>1262961240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go for it, but I won't have my naked image stored in a computer that politicians claim is hack proof and will get deleted right after.</p></div><p>After reading countless articles on these full-body scanners, most of the articles point out that the images are not saved and only displayed until the next person goes through.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go for it , but I wo n't have my naked image stored in a computer that politicians claim is hack proof and will get deleted right after.After reading countless articles on these full-body scanners , most of the articles point out that the images are not saved and only displayed until the next person goes through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go for it, but I won't have my naked image stored in a computer that politicians claim is hack proof and will get deleted right after.After reading countless articles on these full-body scanners, most of the articles point out that the images are not saved and only displayed until the next person goes through.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693070</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>FireFury03</author>
	<datestamp>1262957940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I missed the boat on buying stock in full-body scanner companies, but I may still be able to make a killing on the lead bathing suit manufacturers.</p></div><p>Can't wait for them to get sued when someone tries jumping in the pool wearing a lead bathing suit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I missed the boat on buying stock in full-body scanner companies , but I may still be able to make a killing on the lead bathing suit manufacturers.Ca n't wait for them to get sued when someone tries jumping in the pool wearing a lead bathing suit : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I missed the boat on buying stock in full-body scanner companies, but I may still be able to make a killing on the lead bathing suit manufacturers.Can't wait for them to get sued when someone tries jumping in the pool wearing a lead bathing suit :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691650</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your that worried about some TSA guards seeing a pseudo-image of your body, maybe you should hit the gym a little more often...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your that worried about some TSA guards seeing a pseudo-image of your body , maybe you should hit the gym a little more often.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your that worried about some TSA guards seeing a pseudo-image of your body, maybe you should hit the gym a little more often...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693860</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262963580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that case, we'd better ban these body scanners.</p><p>They can't have it both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that case , we 'd better ban these body scanners.They ca n't have it both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that case, we'd better ban these body scanners.They can't have it both ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693898</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262963760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit.</i></p><p>But that's the point - under law, a child can't consent. So if you're making the point that child laws are justified because the child not want their picture viewed, why are scanners any different? Or if you are saying that it's okay if the child consents, then are you in favour of changing that law?</p><p>(And I think it's dubious to say that anyone consents, when these are being enforced on all airports by the Government. Is an airline free to not use one? This sloppy definition of consent wouldn't pass for any other kind of act.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as the airport scanners go , ( 1 ) inform the public what they face , and ( 2 ) they can choose whether to submit.But that 's the point - under law , a child ca n't consent .
So if you 're making the point that child laws are justified because the child not want their picture viewed , why are scanners any different ?
Or if you are saying that it 's okay if the child consents , then are you in favour of changing that law ?
( And I think it 's dubious to say that anyone consents , when these are being enforced on all airports by the Government .
Is an airline free to not use one ?
This sloppy definition of consent would n't pass for any other kind of act .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit.But that's the point - under law, a child can't consent.
So if you're making the point that child laws are justified because the child not want their picture viewed, why are scanners any different?
Or if you are saying that it's okay if the child consents, then are you in favour of changing that law?
(And I think it's dubious to say that anyone consents, when these are being enforced on all airports by the Government.
Is an airline free to not use one?
This sloppy definition of consent wouldn't pass for any other kind of act.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30707576</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think of gattaca. With blood probes at all gates<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or total recall with nude scanners on the mall entry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think of gattaca .
With blood probes at all gates ... or total recall with nude scanners on the mall entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think of gattaca.
With blood probes at all gates ... or total recall with nude scanners on the mall entry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692258</id>
	<title>Re:Massive overreactions</title>
	<author>Quietlife2k</author>
	<datestamp>1262947440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The risks did not change - we did.<br>
<br>
Never before in our history have we ever been so scared by so small a risk.<br>
<br>
Pre 9/11 hijacked passengers stood a fair chance of survival with both negotiations and advancements in our hostage rescue capabilities.  As a traveler your safest course of action was to be passive.<br>
<br>
Post 9/11 when hijacked you know you are going to die.  Your safest course of action is to be aggressive.  Terrorist should know that by hijacking a plane - all they do is create a plane full of people with NOTHING TO LOOSE and EVERYTHING TO GAIN.<br>
<br>
At least if I were to die trying I would be the one to have chosen how and when I die not them!<br>
<br>
Now imagine a plane load of people with the same f**k *** attitude....</htmltext>
<tokenext>The risks did not change - we did .
Never before in our history have we ever been so scared by so small a risk .
Pre 9/11 hijacked passengers stood a fair chance of survival with both negotiations and advancements in our hostage rescue capabilities .
As a traveler your safest course of action was to be passive .
Post 9/11 when hijacked you know you are going to die .
Your safest course of action is to be aggressive .
Terrorist should know that by hijacking a plane - all they do is create a plane full of people with NOTHING TO LOOSE and EVERYTHING TO GAIN .
At least if I were to die trying I would be the one to have chosen how and when I die not them !
Now imagine a plane load of people with the same f * * k * * * attitude... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The risks did not change - we did.
Never before in our history have we ever been so scared by so small a risk.
Pre 9/11 hijacked passengers stood a fair chance of survival with both negotiations and advancements in our hostage rescue capabilities.
As a traveler your safest course of action was to be passive.
Post 9/11 when hijacked you know you are going to die.
Your safest course of action is to be aggressive.
Terrorist should know that by hijacking a plane - all they do is create a plane full of people with NOTHING TO LOOSE and EVERYTHING TO GAIN.
At least if I were to die trying I would be the one to have chosen how and when I die not them!
Now imagine a plane load of people with the same f**k *** attitude....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691698</id>
	<title>Re:Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone taking bets?</p></div><p>I'll make one on "we lose".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone taking bets ? I 'll make one on " we lose " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone taking bets?I'll make one on "we lose".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698006</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>deprecated</author>
	<datestamp>1262979960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany."</p><p>I think you missed your own point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany .
" I think you missed your own point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.
"I think you missed your own point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691830</id>
	<title>pampers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262941980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>going with this thought process, then i'd say the pampers diaper commercials should be considered child porn...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>going with this thought process , then i 'd say the pampers diaper commercials should be considered child porn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>going with this thought process, then i'd say the pampers diaper commercials should be considered child porn...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691934</id>
	<title>privacy, meet security</title>
	<author>alienzed</author>
	<datestamp>1262942940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Total security implies zero privacy and some privacy implies less than total security. Individuals demand privacy whereas societies demand security...
The solution is clear in this case however, if security is the priority, then simply rid the world of children. If privacy is the priority, then rid the world of individuals. Ah! Safe and private.
no people, no problem</htmltext>
<tokenext>Total security implies zero privacy and some privacy implies less than total security .
Individuals demand privacy whereas societies demand security.. . The solution is clear in this case however , if security is the priority , then simply rid the world of children .
If privacy is the priority , then rid the world of individuals .
Ah ! Safe and private .
no people , no problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total security implies zero privacy and some privacy implies less than total security.
Individuals demand privacy whereas societies demand security...
The solution is clear in this case however, if security is the priority, then simply rid the world of children.
If privacy is the priority, then rid the world of individuals.
Ah! Safe and private.
no people, no problem</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693370</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262960460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.</p></div><p>Er... yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you mean it isn't getting that way?  Guantanamo Bay isn't a prison camp?  Auschwitz started with anti-Jewish sentiment and feelings also. Bush justified the invasion of Iraq, without any evidence whatsoever, using 9/11.</p><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... on any article about the government on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. it's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984. Which generally makes it hard to take seriously.</p></div><p>Why?  The mere fact a comparison is drawn frequently hardly invalidates it.  Orwell in part meant 1984 as a warning.  You don't like warnings?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.Er... yeah ... you mean it is n't getting that way ?
Guantanamo Bay is n't a prison camp ?
Auschwitz started with anti-Jewish sentiment and feelings also .
Bush justified the invasion of Iraq , without any evidence whatsoever , using 9/11 .
... on any article about the government on / .
it 's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984 .
Which generally makes it hard to take seriously.Why ?
The mere fact a comparison is drawn frequently hardly invalidates it .
Orwell in part meant 1984 as a warning .
You do n't like warnings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.Er... yeah ... you mean it isn't getting that way?
Guantanamo Bay isn't a prison camp?
Auschwitz started with anti-Jewish sentiment and feelings also.
Bush justified the invasion of Iraq, without any evidence whatsoever, using 9/11.
... on any article about the government on /.
it's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984.
Which generally makes it hard to take seriously.Why?
The mere fact a comparison is drawn frequently hardly invalidates it.
Orwell in part meant 1984 as a warning.
You don't like warnings?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694152</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the <i>problem</i> here was the possibility of children (or at least their naked photographs) being transported via a series of tubes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the problem here was the possibility of children ( or at least their naked photographs ) being transported via a series of tubes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the problem here was the possibility of children (or at least their naked photographs) being transported via a series of tubes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694610</id>
	<title>Re:Medical uses?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1262967120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>2. You're X-raying someone every single time they fly. It doesn't take a radiologist to tell you that lots of x-rays are bad.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure if you got 5000 back-scatter x-ray scans in a year you'd hit the per year maximum safe limit for a single source (according to US authorities anyway).</p><p>And sitting in a plane at altitude for 1 hour will give you the equivalent of ~70 scans - since you are going through the thing to get on a plane anyway the scan seems negligible. Now for the security people standing at those machines for 8 hours a day there might be something to think about...</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
You 're X-raying someone every single time they fly .
It does n't take a radiologist to tell you that lots of x-rays are bad.Sure if you got 5000 back-scatter x-ray scans in a year you 'd hit the per year maximum safe limit for a single source ( according to US authorities anyway ) .And sitting in a plane at altitude for 1 hour will give you the equivalent of ~ 70 scans - since you are going through the thing to get on a plane anyway the scan seems negligible .
Now for the security people standing at those machines for 8 hours a day there might be something to think about.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
You're X-raying someone every single time they fly.
It doesn't take a radiologist to tell you that lots of x-rays are bad.Sure if you got 5000 back-scatter x-ray scans in a year you'd hit the per year maximum safe limit for a single source (according to US authorities anyway).And sitting in a plane at altitude for 1 hour will give you the equivalent of ~70 scans - since you are going through the thing to get on a plane anyway the scan seems negligible.
Now for the security people standing at those machines for 8 hours a day there might be something to think about...
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694502</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>fyngyrz</author>
	<datestamp>1262966640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
And outlawing such pictures by labeling them pedophilia is your solution?
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No, it's not. I was pointing out that such images are not the same as images of an animal, which was the assertion of the post I was replying to.
</p><p>
My personal position is that photography is a form of speech, and that the proper course of action is to prosecute for coercion or nonconsent if the photographs actually depict that and the subject(s) agree, or are determined to be unable to agree -- that is, they cannot demonstrate an understanding of the photograph <i>and</i> the potential social consequences of its exposure in varying degrees: family, friends, enemies, people they don't know, and broad publication.
</p><p>
The critical underlying issue is a combination of one or more of the following factors: informed consent, coercion, and physical harm. The correct way to deal with it, in my view, is to actually address those issues.
</p><p>
I also don't particularly agree with drawing a line in the sand by age and claiming that it adequately describes an inability to consent. If you go to extremes, it works, but it doesn't work at all when deployed as is, in the teenage years (and sometimes <i>late</i> in the teenage years.) Many teenagers are well able to give informed consent; many adults are not. I'd prefer to see consent validated by decent answers to a series of questions about understanding of consequences, potential consequences, and so forth. Both at the pre-photography stage, and, if a legal tangle arises, at that stage as well.
</p><p>
In other words, I think the whole system is broken. I also think that our society (speaking of the US) is utterly unable to deal with this issue, and it isn't going to get fixed in any way, shape or form -- it's just going to get worse.
</p><p>
Speaking <i>as</i> a photographer, my chosen response to the current situation is to refuse to take pictures of anyone aged less than 18 under any but the most mundane circumstances. Same thing as a martial arts instructor; I won't teach kids. I think it is obvious that society has turned youth itself into a weapon to be used in an almost indiscriminate manner against honest citizens. Often based on no more than the flimsiest of accusations. In my opinion, the best way to protect one's self at this time is to steer clear of said youth.
</p><p>
I also think that parents who take "cute baby pix" in the current social climate are taking risks they don't comprehend, risks with no sunset, in fact risks that are very likely to escalate long after the photos are made. The term "witch hunt" is entirely appropriate for all the connotations of danger, lack of common sense and outright cultural insanity.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And outlawing such pictures by labeling them pedophilia is your solution ?
No , it 's not .
I was pointing out that such images are not the same as images of an animal , which was the assertion of the post I was replying to .
My personal position is that photography is a form of speech , and that the proper course of action is to prosecute for coercion or nonconsent if the photographs actually depict that and the subject ( s ) agree , or are determined to be unable to agree -- that is , they can not demonstrate an understanding of the photograph and the potential social consequences of its exposure in varying degrees : family , friends , enemies , people they do n't know , and broad publication .
The critical underlying issue is a combination of one or more of the following factors : informed consent , coercion , and physical harm .
The correct way to deal with it , in my view , is to actually address those issues .
I also do n't particularly agree with drawing a line in the sand by age and claiming that it adequately describes an inability to consent .
If you go to extremes , it works , but it does n't work at all when deployed as is , in the teenage years ( and sometimes late in the teenage years .
) Many teenagers are well able to give informed consent ; many adults are not .
I 'd prefer to see consent validated by decent answers to a series of questions about understanding of consequences , potential consequences , and so forth .
Both at the pre-photography stage , and , if a legal tangle arises , at that stage as well .
In other words , I think the whole system is broken .
I also think that our society ( speaking of the US ) is utterly unable to deal with this issue , and it is n't going to get fixed in any way , shape or form -- it 's just going to get worse .
Speaking as a photographer , my chosen response to the current situation is to refuse to take pictures of anyone aged less than 18 under any but the most mundane circumstances .
Same thing as a martial arts instructor ; I wo n't teach kids .
I think it is obvious that society has turned youth itself into a weapon to be used in an almost indiscriminate manner against honest citizens .
Often based on no more than the flimsiest of accusations .
In my opinion , the best way to protect one 's self at this time is to steer clear of said youth .
I also think that parents who take " cute baby pix " in the current social climate are taking risks they do n't comprehend , risks with no sunset , in fact risks that are very likely to escalate long after the photos are made .
The term " witch hunt " is entirely appropriate for all the connotations of danger , lack of common sense and outright cultural insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
And outlawing such pictures by labeling them pedophilia is your solution?
No, it's not.
I was pointing out that such images are not the same as images of an animal, which was the assertion of the post I was replying to.
My personal position is that photography is a form of speech, and that the proper course of action is to prosecute for coercion or nonconsent if the photographs actually depict that and the subject(s) agree, or are determined to be unable to agree -- that is, they cannot demonstrate an understanding of the photograph and the potential social consequences of its exposure in varying degrees: family, friends, enemies, people they don't know, and broad publication.
The critical underlying issue is a combination of one or more of the following factors: informed consent, coercion, and physical harm.
The correct way to deal with it, in my view, is to actually address those issues.
I also don't particularly agree with drawing a line in the sand by age and claiming that it adequately describes an inability to consent.
If you go to extremes, it works, but it doesn't work at all when deployed as is, in the teenage years (and sometimes late in the teenage years.
) Many teenagers are well able to give informed consent; many adults are not.
I'd prefer to see consent validated by decent answers to a series of questions about understanding of consequences, potential consequences, and so forth.
Both at the pre-photography stage, and, if a legal tangle arises, at that stage as well.
In other words, I think the whole system is broken.
I also think that our society (speaking of the US) is utterly unable to deal with this issue, and it isn't going to get fixed in any way, shape or form -- it's just going to get worse.
Speaking as a photographer, my chosen response to the current situation is to refuse to take pictures of anyone aged less than 18 under any but the most mundane circumstances.
Same thing as a martial arts instructor; I won't teach kids.
I think it is obvious that society has turned youth itself into a weapon to be used in an almost indiscriminate manner against honest citizens.
Often based on no more than the flimsiest of accusations.
In my opinion, the best way to protect one's self at this time is to steer clear of said youth.
I also think that parents who take "cute baby pix" in the current social climate are taking risks they don't comprehend, risks with no sunset, in fact risks that are very likely to escalate long after the photos are made.
The term "witch hunt" is entirely appropriate for all the connotations of danger, lack of common sense and outright cultural insanity.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693138</id>
	<title>I ahve an idea...</title>
	<author>GregC63</author>
	<datestamp>1262958660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have an idea...

If you don't want planes blowing up in the air and you don't want your kids going throught the scanners...

DON'T F*#@\%ING FLY!

I swear, all these little squeaky wheel groups need to shut the hell up.

We all need to start running our airports like the Israeli's and we wouldn't have all these security breaches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an idea.. . If you do n't want planes blowing up in the air and you do n't want your kids going throught the scanners.. . DO N'T F * # @ \ % ING FLY !
I swear , all these little squeaky wheel groups need to shut the hell up .
We all need to start running our airports like the Israeli 's and we would n't have all these security breaches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an idea...

If you don't want planes blowing up in the air and you don't want your kids going throught the scanners...

DON'T F*#@\%ING FLY!
I swear, all these little squeaky wheel groups need to shut the hell up.
We all need to start running our airports like the Israeli's and we wouldn't have all these security breaches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691704</id>
	<title>Idiotic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coroners had better stop documenting the autopsies of children or they'll be in trouble -\_-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coroners had better stop documenting the autopsies of children or they 'll be in trouble - \ _-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coroners had better stop documenting the autopsies of children or they'll be in trouble -\_-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693124</id>
	<title>Re:Odd timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262958480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up. </i></p><p>Except, allegedly, the explosive used in the Christmas day bombing is a type of low-density explosive that couldn't be detected by the type of full-body scanners being installed anyway, so what is the freaking point?</p><p>Add to that, the bomber started his travels in Yemen and switched planes in Amsterdam, so how is installing full-body scanners in the US is going to prevent future attempts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east , thru Europe , all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up .
Except , allegedly , the explosive used in the Christmas day bombing is a type of low-density explosive that could n't be detected by the type of full-body scanners being installed anyway , so what is the freaking point ? Add to that , the bomber started his travels in Yemen and switched planes in Amsterdam , so how is installing full-body scanners in the US is going to prevent future attempts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.
Except, allegedly, the explosive used in the Christmas day bombing is a type of low-density explosive that couldn't be detected by the type of full-body scanners being installed anyway, so what is the freaking point?Add to that, the bomber started his travels in Yemen and switched planes in Amsterdam, so how is installing full-body scanners in the US is going to prevent future attempts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693056</id>
	<title>Not indecent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262957760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UK law prohibits indecent images. Nudity is neither necessary nor sufficient to indicate indecency under UK law.</p><p>Simple snaps on a nudist beach, medical photographs, photos gathered for evidence in court, snaps in the bath or on a rug - all perfectly legal. A fully clothed but sexually suggestive photograph of a child may be illegal - nudity is not the defining criteria.</p><p>There is no way these machines would fall foul of the UK law, so it's a complete non-story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK law prohibits indecent images .
Nudity is neither necessary nor sufficient to indicate indecency under UK law.Simple snaps on a nudist beach , medical photographs , photos gathered for evidence in court , snaps in the bath or on a rug - all perfectly legal .
A fully clothed but sexually suggestive photograph of a child may be illegal - nudity is not the defining criteria.There is no way these machines would fall foul of the UK law , so it 's a complete non-story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK law prohibits indecent images.
Nudity is neither necessary nor sufficient to indicate indecency under UK law.Simple snaps on a nudist beach, medical photographs, photos gathered for evidence in court, snaps in the bath or on a rug - all perfectly legal.
A fully clothed but sexually suggestive photograph of a child may be illegal - nudity is not the defining criteria.There is no way these machines would fall foul of the UK law, so it's a complete non-story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694536</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1262966760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better not. Godwin's law is just a monument to the failure of Usenet to evolve. It's used solely to avoid valid comparisons and is useless otherwise. It does not prevent discussions derailing, just adds useless "Godwin's law" discussions to the threads.
<p>
Anyway it's something the Nazis would do. (Thanks, I'm here all week<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better not .
Godwin 's law is just a monument to the failure of Usenet to evolve .
It 's used solely to avoid valid comparisons and is useless otherwise .
It does not prevent discussions derailing , just adds useless " Godwin 's law " discussions to the threads .
Anyway it 's something the Nazis would do .
( Thanks , I 'm here all week ... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better not.
Godwin's law is just a monument to the failure of Usenet to evolve.
It's used solely to avoid valid comparisons and is useless otherwise.
It does not prevent discussions derailing, just adds useless "Godwin's law" discussions to the threads.
Anyway it's something the Nazis would do.
(Thanks, I'm here all week ...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700414</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262946840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should be some sort of Godwin's law for invocations of Godwin's law as a way to stifle dissent and such.</p><p>Just saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be some sort of Godwin 's law for invocations of Godwin 's law as a way to stifle dissent and such.Just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be some sort of Godwin's law for invocations of Godwin's law as a way to stifle dissent and such.Just saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691806</id>
	<title>Re:It's the only logical solution.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262941680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could we start with the ones of my neighbor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we start with the ones of my neighbor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we start with the ones of my neighbor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695924</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>rdavidson3</author>
	<datestamp>1262971680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"But back to those privacy concerns. Some lawyers believe having a young traveller pass through the full-body scanners could violate child pornography laws. As a result, Canada is exempting passengers under-18 from the new measures."</p></div><p>And if I was a terrorist then I would be recruiting teenagers, which would be probably easier to polarize (and brain-wash) them would than an adult.<br> <br>
I don't see any way out of this, and exempting a group based on age would only encourage the bad people of the world to exploit them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But back to those privacy concerns .
Some lawyers believe having a young traveller pass through the full-body scanners could violate child pornography laws .
As a result , Canada is exempting passengers under-18 from the new measures .
" And if I was a terrorist then I would be recruiting teenagers , which would be probably easier to polarize ( and brain-wash ) them would than an adult .
I do n't see any way out of this , and exempting a group based on age would only encourage the bad people of the world to exploit them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But back to those privacy concerns.
Some lawyers believe having a young traveller pass through the full-body scanners could violate child pornography laws.
As a result, Canada is exempting passengers under-18 from the new measures.
"And if I was a terrorist then I would be recruiting teenagers, which would be probably easier to polarize (and brain-wash) them would than an adult.
I don't see any way out of this, and exempting a group based on age would only encourage the bad people of the world to exploit them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692636</id>
	<title>Security Measures For Political "Hotspots"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't understand is that these security measures are placed in airports pretty much exclusively.  But what's keeping someone from touring the white house with an underwear bomb, becoming the aid of a senator, a member of secret service, or infiltrating any other political house hosting many political figures.  Why don't they strip search people going into them?  Why don't they get their nudie scans of all the senators, employees, security, secret service, caterers, etc?  I mean yes a terrorist wants to invoke terror, well what's more terrifying to the "leaders" of the US than blowing up their politicians and people who work for them?</p><p>Or more importantly I should ask, why do those people who make these decisions to implement these policies not want those policies protecting them?  I would think they are at a higher risk than the average citizenry.  But I suspect it has something to do with all of these things being pretty degrading to a person, and they have the voice and the power to prevent it from affecting them.  Plus you'd think the companies buying all those votes would want them to buy more of their security equipment at those highly inflated government pricing schemes..........guess the cost per government official versus gain by implementing them in government buildings.</p><p>I still say they put em all the court houses, police stations.....maybe a few others.   See how many people can get out of jury duty based on religious rights to not have their soul stolen by scanner tech, and how many weapons the system can detect on the officers as a good "testbed".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is that these security measures are placed in airports pretty much exclusively .
But what 's keeping someone from touring the white house with an underwear bomb , becoming the aid of a senator , a member of secret service , or infiltrating any other political house hosting many political figures .
Why do n't they strip search people going into them ?
Why do n't they get their nudie scans of all the senators , employees , security , secret service , caterers , etc ?
I mean yes a terrorist wants to invoke terror , well what 's more terrifying to the " leaders " of the US than blowing up their politicians and people who work for them ? Or more importantly I should ask , why do those people who make these decisions to implement these policies not want those policies protecting them ?
I would think they are at a higher risk than the average citizenry .
But I suspect it has something to do with all of these things being pretty degrading to a person , and they have the voice and the power to prevent it from affecting them .
Plus you 'd think the companies buying all those votes would want them to buy more of their security equipment at those highly inflated government pricing schemes..........guess the cost per government official versus gain by implementing them in government buildings.I still say they put em all the court houses , police stations.....maybe a few others .
See how many people can get out of jury duty based on religious rights to not have their soul stolen by scanner tech , and how many weapons the system can detect on the officers as a good " testbed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is that these security measures are placed in airports pretty much exclusively.
But what's keeping someone from touring the white house with an underwear bomb, becoming the aid of a senator, a member of secret service, or infiltrating any other political house hosting many political figures.
Why don't they strip search people going into them?
Why don't they get their nudie scans of all the senators, employees, security, secret service, caterers, etc?
I mean yes a terrorist wants to invoke terror, well what's more terrifying to the "leaders" of the US than blowing up their politicians and people who work for them?Or more importantly I should ask, why do those people who make these decisions to implement these policies not want those policies protecting them?
I would think they are at a higher risk than the average citizenry.
But I suspect it has something to do with all of these things being pretty degrading to a person, and they have the voice and the power to prevent it from affecting them.
Plus you'd think the companies buying all those votes would want them to buy more of their security equipment at those highly inflated government pricing schemes..........guess the cost per government official versus gain by implementing them in government buildings.I still say they put em all the court houses, police stations.....maybe a few others.
See how many people can get out of jury duty based on religious rights to not have their soul stolen by scanner tech, and how many weapons the system can detect on the officers as a good "testbed".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692194</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1262946660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>but... but... but... I was told that if I ever saw a child naked I'm a pedophile, and if I don't want my and everyone elses privacy continually violated then I am a terrorist... that means I have to be a pedophile or a terrorist?</htmltext>
<tokenext>but... but... but... I was told that if I ever saw a child naked I 'm a pedophile , and if I do n't want my and everyone elses privacy continually violated then I am a terrorist... that means I have to be a pedophile or a terrorist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but... but... but... I was told that if I ever saw a child naked I'm a pedophile, and if I don't want my and everyone elses privacy continually violated then I am a terrorist... that means I have to be a pedophile or a terrorist?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694306</id>
	<title>Re:It's the only logical solution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the lawyers, and the politicians, and Bono too, please.</p><p>captcha is 'gunshot' - this is getting scary. The thought never entered my mind, officer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the lawyers , and the politicians , and Bono too , please.captcha is 'gunshot ' - this is getting scary .
The thought never entered my mind , officer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the lawyers, and the politicians, and Bono too, please.captcha is 'gunshot' - this is getting scary.
The thought never entered my mind, officer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691394</id>
	<title>False Dichotomy</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1262893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.</i></p><p>I somehow doubt that their choice is limited to those two options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.I somehow doubt that their choice is limited to those two options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.I somehow doubt that their choice is limited to those two options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bestiality is illegal. Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bestiality is illegal .
Let 's outlaw all images of naked animals ; the logic is the same , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bestiality is illegal.
Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30703312</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1262961540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, parents have officially been forbidden to look at their children while they are naked -- yes, that also includes the birth.
<br>
<br>
That's just ridiculous, and it's part of why the World isn't moving -- stupid punkass idiots with the fear of change trying to find ridiculous arguments. If you want to be against it, prove us that it is wrong with decent things!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , parents have officially been forbidden to look at their children while they are naked -- yes , that also includes the birth .
That 's just ridiculous , and it 's part of why the World is n't moving -- stupid punkass idiots with the fear of change trying to find ridiculous arguments .
If you want to be against it , prove us that it is wrong with decent things !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, parents have officially been forbidden to look at their children while they are naked -- yes, that also includes the birth.
That's just ridiculous, and it's part of why the World isn't moving -- stupid punkass idiots with the fear of change trying to find ridiculous arguments.
If you want to be against it, prove us that it is wrong with decent things!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693682</id>
	<title>Re:Odd timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262962620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on to top things off, the dutch airport security at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport have ordered machines that will violate your privacy, but will NOT detect powder-based bombs, which vulnerability is then widely reported in the media..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on to top things off , the dutch airport security at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport have ordered machines that will violate your privacy , but will NOT detect powder-based bombs , which vulnerability is then widely reported in the media. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on to top things off, the dutch airport security at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport have ordered machines that will violate your privacy, but will NOT detect powder-based bombs, which vulnerability is then widely reported in the media..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691528</id>
	<title>I'm pretty sure my parents should be in jail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on pictures they snapped of my cousin and I running around naked at the beach when we were about 3.</p><p>This is really stupid.  The UK's "strict liability" laws are horribly designed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on pictures they snapped of my cousin and I running around naked at the beach when we were about 3.This is really stupid .
The UK 's " strict liability " laws are horribly designed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on pictures they snapped of my cousin and I running around naked at the beach when we were about 3.This is really stupid.
The UK's "strict liability" laws are horribly designed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691926</id>
	<title>Re:Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1262942760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists.</p></div></blockquote><p>They're both the same.</p><p><a href="http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/marriage\_age.html" title="answering-islam.org">http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/marriage\_age.html</a> [answering-islam.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists.They 're both the same.http : //www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/marriage \ _age.html [ answering-islam.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists.They're both the same.http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/marriage\_age.html [answering-islam.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692982</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262956860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt very much this is true, but so what if they do?  You cannot control what people are aroused by.  Studies have shown that up to 40\% of "normal" adults are sometimes sexually aroused by images of children.  Few of these are practicing pedophiles.   The spectrum of human sexual response is extremely broad and the border between sensual appreciation of children (regarded as normal) and sexuality is very thin indeed.  Hiding stimuli won't work - we are all surrounded by children.  It's how people deal with the stimulus that counts.  Also, some researchers have argued that some child pornography allows pedophiles to "let steam out of the engine" and actually makes it easier for them to avoid offending.  The idea here is that a fantasy deficit in pedophiles causes them to act out.  There is also an approach called "satiation therapy" that exposes pedophiles to so many naked images of children that they begin to lose interest, though I haven't seen reports of its success or otherwise.  The approach of locking pedophiles up for years without good therapy doesn't work so we need to think outside the box.  Then again, we used to subject homosexuals to therapy also<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. food for thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt very much this is true , but so what if they do ?
You can not control what people are aroused by .
Studies have shown that up to 40 \ % of " normal " adults are sometimes sexually aroused by images of children .
Few of these are practicing pedophiles .
The spectrum of human sexual response is extremely broad and the border between sensual appreciation of children ( regarded as normal ) and sexuality is very thin indeed .
Hiding stimuli wo n't work - we are all surrounded by children .
It 's how people deal with the stimulus that counts .
Also , some researchers have argued that some child pornography allows pedophiles to " let steam out of the engine " and actually makes it easier for them to avoid offending .
The idea here is that a fantasy deficit in pedophiles causes them to act out .
There is also an approach called " satiation therapy " that exposes pedophiles to so many naked images of children that they begin to lose interest , though I have n't seen reports of its success or otherwise .
The approach of locking pedophiles up for years without good therapy does n't work so we need to think outside the box .
Then again , we used to subject homosexuals to therapy also .. food for thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt very much this is true, but so what if they do?
You cannot control what people are aroused by.
Studies have shown that up to 40\% of "normal" adults are sometimes sexually aroused by images of children.
Few of these are practicing pedophiles.
The spectrum of human sexual response is extremely broad and the border between sensual appreciation of children (regarded as normal) and sexuality is very thin indeed.
Hiding stimuli won't work - we are all surrounded by children.
It's how people deal with the stimulus that counts.
Also, some researchers have argued that some child pornography allows pedophiles to "let steam out of the engine" and actually makes it easier for them to avoid offending.
The idea here is that a fantasy deficit in pedophiles causes them to act out.
There is also an approach called "satiation therapy" that exposes pedophiles to so many naked images of children that they begin to lose interest, though I haven't seen reports of its success or otherwise.
The approach of locking pedophiles up for years without good therapy doesn't work so we need to think outside the box.
Then again, we used to subject homosexuals to therapy also .. food for thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692398</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262949240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An example of an expensive deployment of the wrong technology when a cheap alternative has been available for --decades--.</p><p>Change the security such that every single traveler, bar none, must enter a private  passage way, perhaps with a couple video cameras or viewing windows. They remove all clothes and place on top of the x-ray belt along with the usual purse, wallet, keys etc. They walk through this "new" "scanner" which is really the security person looking at the x-ray and at the individual who has just bared all. At the end of their walk one of two doors can unlock  - one leads to hell - further interrogation, wearing a hospital gown and (if needed) straight jacket.The other door leads to get their clothes etc. from the x-ray belt and go "safely" travel away. Many such passage ways could be cheaply built and their images do not need recording. Make a "family" passage for those with small children.</p><p>Apply the same requirements to all employees coming to work at airports including flight staff. Make all employees do this when coming and going. Maybe there are airline pilots waiting to be terrorists too. Nobody, not even your aged grandmother, warrants being beyond suspicion.</p><p>With so many baggage handlers out there it only takes a few to bypass this "security" anyway.</p><p>If you don't want to risk your life on a plane, boat, bus or train, then don't get on one. You have a greater chance of a heart attack or cancer caused by unhealthy lifestyle than terrorism.</p><p>This cheap "scanning" could have been done for a very long time without the use of video cameras. It is not immoral we all have the same body parts. Well most of us do anyway.</p><p>The truth is effective security was never the real goal. In most of the world It has always been the authorities' goal to create the illusion of effective security to the general public while at the same time in most countries fill the pockets of the authorities' chosen private individuals and corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An example of an expensive deployment of the wrong technology when a cheap alternative has been available for --decades--.Change the security such that every single traveler , bar none , must enter a private passage way , perhaps with a couple video cameras or viewing windows .
They remove all clothes and place on top of the x-ray belt along with the usual purse , wallet , keys etc .
They walk through this " new " " scanner " which is really the security person looking at the x-ray and at the individual who has just bared all .
At the end of their walk one of two doors can unlock - one leads to hell - further interrogation , wearing a hospital gown and ( if needed ) straight jacket.The other door leads to get their clothes etc .
from the x-ray belt and go " safely " travel away .
Many such passage ways could be cheaply built and their images do not need recording .
Make a " family " passage for those with small children.Apply the same requirements to all employees coming to work at airports including flight staff .
Make all employees do this when coming and going .
Maybe there are airline pilots waiting to be terrorists too .
Nobody , not even your aged grandmother , warrants being beyond suspicion.With so many baggage handlers out there it only takes a few to bypass this " security " anyway.If you do n't want to risk your life on a plane , boat , bus or train , then do n't get on one .
You have a greater chance of a heart attack or cancer caused by unhealthy lifestyle than terrorism.This cheap " scanning " could have been done for a very long time without the use of video cameras .
It is not immoral we all have the same body parts .
Well most of us do anyway.The truth is effective security was never the real goal .
In most of the world It has always been the authorities ' goal to create the illusion of effective security to the general public while at the same time in most countries fill the pockets of the authorities ' chosen private individuals and corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An example of an expensive deployment of the wrong technology when a cheap alternative has been available for --decades--.Change the security such that every single traveler, bar none, must enter a private  passage way, perhaps with a couple video cameras or viewing windows.
They remove all clothes and place on top of the x-ray belt along with the usual purse, wallet, keys etc.
They walk through this "new" "scanner" which is really the security person looking at the x-ray and at the individual who has just bared all.
At the end of their walk one of two doors can unlock  - one leads to hell - further interrogation, wearing a hospital gown and (if needed) straight jacket.The other door leads to get their clothes etc.
from the x-ray belt and go "safely" travel away.
Many such passage ways could be cheaply built and their images do not need recording.
Make a "family" passage for those with small children.Apply the same requirements to all employees coming to work at airports including flight staff.
Make all employees do this when coming and going.
Maybe there are airline pilots waiting to be terrorists too.
Nobody, not even your aged grandmother, warrants being beyond suspicion.With so many baggage handlers out there it only takes a few to bypass this "security" anyway.If you don't want to risk your life on a plane, boat, bus or train, then don't get on one.
You have a greater chance of a heart attack or cancer caused by unhealthy lifestyle than terrorism.This cheap "scanning" could have been done for a very long time without the use of video cameras.
It is not immoral we all have the same body parts.
Well most of us do anyway.The truth is effective security was never the real goal.
In most of the world It has always been the authorities' goal to create the illusion of effective security to the general public while at the same time in most countries fill the pockets of the authorities' chosen private individuals and corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694486</id>
	<title>What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1262966520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear Diabold got the development contract...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear Diabold got the development contract.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear Diabold got the development contract...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692890</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262956020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah gotta love it!  Which hysteria will win?  Place your bets folks!  My money is on  terrorist-phobia since everyone "just trusts" that governments will do the right thing with all those millions of barely obscured images of children's genitals.  And when it gets right down to it, people are more hysterical about planes blowing up (even though it hardly ever happens) than they are about a government-led game of Naked Movie Star with little Johnny and Mary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah got ta love it !
Which hysteria will win ?
Place your bets folks !
My money is on terrorist-phobia since everyone " just trusts " that governments will do the right thing with all those millions of barely obscured images of children 's genitals .
And when it gets right down to it , people are more hysterical about planes blowing up ( even though it hardly ever happens ) than they are about a government-led game of Naked Movie Star with little Johnny and Mary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah gotta love it!
Which hysteria will win?
Place your bets folks!
My money is on  terrorist-phobia since everyone "just trusts" that governments will do the right thing with all those millions of barely obscured images of children's genitals.
And when it gets right down to it, people are more hysterical about planes blowing up (even though it hardly ever happens) than they are about a government-led game of Naked Movie Star with little Johnny and Mary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695046</id>
	<title>Shouldn't This Be Simple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262968560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recalibrate the display on these things to A) only show a rough outline of the person and B) simply highlight whatever it is that the person may be carrying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recalibrate the display on these things to A ) only show a rough outline of the person and B ) simply highlight whatever it is that the person may be carrying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recalibrate the display on these things to A) only show a rough outline of the person and B) simply highlight whatever it is that the person may be carrying?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691858</id>
	<title>Thanks Osama</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1262942160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im 27 and never flew before, now I will never fly fuck you if you think you gonna xray my whole body. Sorry but if I want to keister some pot ima do it! Fuckers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im 27 and never flew before , now I will never fly fuck you if you think you gon na xray my whole body .
Sorry but if I want to keister some pot ima do it !
Fuckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im 27 and never flew before, now I will never fly fuck you if you think you gonna xray my whole body.
Sorry but if I want to keister some pot ima do it!
Fuckers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691468</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262894160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, which one is supposed to be Christian Bale?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , which one is supposed to be Christian Bale ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, which one is supposed to be Christian Bale?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691670</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree. But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience. People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.</p></div><p>Was it really proper child porn, as in nudity of prepubescent children?</p><p>Or was it simply nude pics of humans whom we consider children socially (and therefore also classify them as "child porn"), but who are physically sexually mature?</p><p>Because, you know, it would be hard for a healthy sexually mature heterosexual male to not be aroused by a nude picture of a sexually mature female, regardless of the nature of the picture and ages of either participant. You can't cheat nature, you can only suppress its urges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times , and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders , I can tell you one thing : unlike 'regular ' porn , child porn plays to an entirely different audience .
People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.Was it really proper child porn , as in nudity of prepubescent children ? Or was it simply nude pics of humans whom we consider children socially ( and therefore also classify them as " child porn " ) , but who are physically sexually mature ? Because , you know , it would be hard for a healthy sexually mature heterosexual male to not be aroused by a nude picture of a sexually mature female , regardless of the nature of the picture and ages of either participant .
You ca n't cheat nature , you can only suppress its urges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience.
People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.Was it really proper child porn, as in nudity of prepubescent children?Or was it simply nude pics of humans whom we consider children socially (and therefore also classify them as "child porn"), but who are physically sexually mature?Because, you know, it would be hard for a healthy sexually mature heterosexual male to not be aroused by a nude picture of a sexually mature female, regardless of the nature of the picture and ages of either participant.
You can't cheat nature, you can only suppress its urges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693496</id>
	<title>Adult porn</title>
	<author>phoomp</author>
	<datestamp>1262961480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it violates child porn laws when children are involved, does that mean it's regular porn when adults are involved?  So much for not violating privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it violates child porn laws when children are involved , does that mean it 's regular porn when adults are involved ?
So much for not violating privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it violates child porn laws when children are involved, does that mean it's regular porn when adults are involved?
So much for not violating privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691786</id>
	<title>Medical scanners</title>
	<author>sosume</author>
	<datestamp>1262941500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So mediical scans are forbidden now too? what a load of crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So mediical scans are forbidden now too ?
what a load of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So mediical scans are forbidden now too?
what a load of crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696270</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid friggin article</title>
	<author>C0L0PH0N</author>
	<datestamp>1262972940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Now if images did leak out onto the internet, then you have a case against anyone who allowed or enabled that leak. So, I would be all for stringent historical logging of usage of these machines. Some way to identify all persons who had access that could have leaked an inappropriate image, be it child or not."</i> <br> <br>

So, if some sick TSA low-income freak makes a big private collection over time of images, say with a secret spy camera or spy video camera they carried in (easy to do), and the collection ever got leaked to the Internet,  that would be a freight train of trouble for TSA.   Given the huge numbers envisioned of these whole body scanners (every airport, world wide?), I think it is inevitable that some employee or other will start making a collection.....paid for by the gov'mint!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now if images did leak out onto the internet , then you have a case against anyone who allowed or enabled that leak .
So , I would be all for stringent historical logging of usage of these machines .
Some way to identify all persons who had access that could have leaked an inappropriate image , be it child or not .
" So , if some sick TSA low-income freak makes a big private collection over time of images , say with a secret spy camera or spy video camera they carried in ( easy to do ) , and the collection ever got leaked to the Internet , that would be a freight train of trouble for TSA .
Given the huge numbers envisioned of these whole body scanners ( every airport , world wide ?
) , I think it is inevitable that some employee or other will start making a collection.....paid for by the gov'mint !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now if images did leak out onto the internet, then you have a case against anyone who allowed or enabled that leak.
So, I would be all for stringent historical logging of usage of these machines.
Some way to identify all persons who had access that could have leaked an inappropriate image, be it child or not.
"  

So, if some sick TSA low-income freak makes a big private collection over time of images, say with a secret spy camera or spy video camera they carried in (easy to do), and the collection ever got leaked to the Internet,  that would be a freight train of trouble for TSA.
Given the huge numbers envisioned of these whole body scanners (every airport, world wide?
), I think it is inevitable that some employee or other will start making a collection.....paid for by the gov'mint!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693424</id>
	<title>Re:Weasel words exists in law, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262961000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Whereas pictures of a naked child holding a sex toy for instance would be.</i></p><p>How about a scan of a child carrying something that appears phallic-shaped on the scan?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas pictures of a naked child holding a sex toy for instance would be.How about a scan of a child carrying something that appears phallic-shaped on the scan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas pictures of a naked child holding a sex toy for instance would be.How about a scan of a child carrying something that appears phallic-shaped on the scan?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693640</id>
	<title>Re:Odd timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262962380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not half as odd as the fact that had the "underwear bomber" gone through one of these machines, it probably wouldn't have detected anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not half as odd as the fact that had the " underwear bomber " gone through one of these machines , it probably would n't have detected anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not half as odd as the fact that had the "underwear bomber" gone through one of these machines, it probably wouldn't have detected anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692772</id>
	<title>So after we all get over the initial squeamishness</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1262954460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>about full body scans, terrorists will take it to the next level: <a href="http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/09/26/internal-bomb-suicide-bomber-hid-explosives-inside-his-body/" title="nationalterroralert.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/09/26/internal-bomb-suicide-bomber-hid-explosives-inside-his-body/</a> [nationalterroralert.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>about full body scans , terrorists will take it to the next level : http : //www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/09/26/internal-bomb-suicide-bomber-hid-explosives-inside-his-body/ [ nationalterroralert.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about full body scans, terrorists will take it to the next level: http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/09/26/internal-bomb-suicide-bomber-hid-explosives-inside-his-body/ [nationalterroralert.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386</id>
	<title>Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two ridiculous hot-button topics with opposing aims.<br>Wow, this is kind of like when the unstoppble force meets the immovable object.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two ridiculous hot-button topics with opposing aims.Wow , this is kind of like when the unstoppble force meets the immovable object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two ridiculous hot-button topics with opposing aims.Wow, this is kind of like when the unstoppble force meets the immovable object.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691908</id>
	<title>Re:False Dichotomy</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1262942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I propose we invoke the law of the school yard which clearly states that if they're going to see ours they're going to have to show us theirs. That should put an end to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I propose we invoke the law of the school yard which clearly states that if they 're going to see ours they 're going to have to show us theirs .
That should put an end to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I propose we invoke the law of the school yard which clearly states that if they're going to see ours they're going to have to show us theirs.
That should put an end to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695106</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1262968800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The software disguises the private parts of the individual before the image goes to the operator. The simple solution is for the software to doctor the image and enlarge desired features. Then everyone would want a copy of the image to hang on their wall at home. The airport could even make a buck off the images. j/k</htmltext>
<tokenext>The software disguises the private parts of the individual before the image goes to the operator .
The simple solution is for the software to doctor the image and enlarge desired features .
Then everyone would want a copy of the image to hang on their wall at home .
The airport could even make a buck off the images .
j/k</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The software disguises the private parts of the individual before the image goes to the operator.
The simple solution is for the software to doctor the image and enlarge desired features.
Then everyone would want a copy of the image to hang on their wall at home.
The airport could even make a buck off the images.
j/k</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691472</id>
	<title>Wait,</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262894220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A child protection law is actually protecting the privacy of adults?<br> <br>

This cant be right, I'm certain the PC committee will rectify this before tea time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A child protection law is actually protecting the privacy of adults ?
This cant be right , I 'm certain the PC committee will rectify this before tea time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A child protection law is actually protecting the privacy of adults?
This cant be right, I'm certain the PC committee will rectify this before tea time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694272</id>
	<title>Re:Massive overreatctions</title>
	<author>Quietlife2k</author>
	<datestamp>1262965620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are risks in everything we do.<br>
<br>
Link : <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/05/30/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-115875-17495916/" title="mirror.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/05/30/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-115875-17495916/</a> [mirror.co.uk] <br>
<br>
Quote : 8,000/1 KILLED IN A ROAD ACCIDENT.<br>
EVERY year 1,500 car drivers and adult passengers die in road smashes, while around 1,000 pedestrians and cyclists die in road accidents. Worldwide, over 3,000 people are killed in road crashes daily.<br>
<br>
9,300,000/1 DYING IN TERRORIST ATTACK<br>
LAST year there were 651 significant international terrorist attacks worldwide, killing nearly 2,000 people.<br>
<br>
And you want me and everyone else to pose nude ?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are risks in everything we do .
Link : http : //www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/05/30/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-115875-17495916/ [ mirror.co.uk ] Quote : 8,000/1 KILLED IN A ROAD ACCIDENT .
EVERY year 1,500 car drivers and adult passengers die in road smashes , while around 1,000 pedestrians and cyclists die in road accidents .
Worldwide , over 3,000 people are killed in road crashes daily .
9,300,000/1 DYING IN TERRORIST ATTACK LAST year there were 651 significant international terrorist attacks worldwide , killing nearly 2,000 people .
And you want me and everyone else to pose nude ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are risks in everything we do.
Link : http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/05/30/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-115875-17495916/ [mirror.co.uk] 

Quote : 8,000/1 KILLED IN A ROAD ACCIDENT.
EVERY year 1,500 car drivers and adult passengers die in road smashes, while around 1,000 pedestrians and cyclists die in road accidents.
Worldwide, over 3,000 people are killed in road crashes daily.
9,300,000/1 DYING IN TERRORIST ATTACK
LAST year there were 651 significant international terrorist attacks worldwide, killing nearly 2,000 people.
And you want me and everyone else to pose nude ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694042</id>
	<title>And if the child never knows, it won't mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262964660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if the child never knows, it won't mind.</p><p>If that's the way you want to take it, the KP is fine as long as they're young enough that they will look different enough by the time they're old enough to be embarrassed (and since "Doctors and Nurses" doesn't go out of fashion until probably half way to puberty or beyond, AND you change a lot in your formative years, this would allow up to, say 5 y.o. but not 10 y.o pictures of nekkid kids).</p><p>And the laws are not based on "embarrassment" since kids taking pictures OF THEMSELVES is considered KP, they're arrested and then embarrassed for the rest of their lives. If embarrassment were the reason, the prosecutors would be in jail for KP too.</p><p>"Slow Down Cowboy!</p><p>Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.</p><p>It's been 2 hours, 22 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"</p><p>"It's been 2 hours, 51 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"</p><p>Gosh. Wonder if I'll break the record of three hours...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if the child never knows , it wo n't mind.If that 's the way you want to take it , the KP is fine as long as they 're young enough that they will look different enough by the time they 're old enough to be embarrassed ( and since " Doctors and Nurses " does n't go out of fashion until probably half way to puberty or beyond , AND you change a lot in your formative years , this would allow up to , say 5 y.o .
but not 10 y.o pictures of nekkid kids ) .And the laws are not based on " embarrassment " since kids taking pictures OF THEMSELVES is considered KP , they 're arrested and then embarrassed for the rest of their lives .
If embarrassment were the reason , the prosecutors would be in jail for KP too .
" Slow Down Cowboy ! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.It 's been 2 hours , 22 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment " " It 's been 2 hours , 51 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment " Gosh .
Wonder if I 'll break the record of three hours.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if the child never knows, it won't mind.If that's the way you want to take it, the KP is fine as long as they're young enough that they will look different enough by the time they're old enough to be embarrassed (and since "Doctors and Nurses" doesn't go out of fashion until probably half way to puberty or beyond, AND you change a lot in your formative years, this would allow up to, say 5 y.o.
but not 10 y.o pictures of nekkid kids).And the laws are not based on "embarrassment" since kids taking pictures OF THEMSELVES is considered KP, they're arrested and then embarrassed for the rest of their lives.
If embarrassment were the reason, the prosecutors would be in jail for KP too.
"Slow Down Cowboy!Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.It's been 2 hours, 22 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment""It's been 2 hours, 51 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"Gosh.
Wonder if I'll break the record of three hours...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30708832</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the argument is not nearly as different as you are making it seem when examined closely.  The main argument against child porn is that they have no control over it, and are not cognisant enough to understand whats happening to them completely. That is very similar to the animal argument, its a rights/ethics issue.  Although we obviously don't care enough to hide every animals genitalia so thats where the analogy falls off.</p><p>But by your logic, if a mentally disabled child had pictures taken of them, it would be okay since they would never understand or care (1st paragraph)</p><p>But anyway, the fact that full body scanning could be enforced in anything except an automated fashion is pretty ludicrous but somehow I can still see it going into effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the argument is not nearly as different as you are making it seem when examined closely .
The main argument against child porn is that they have no control over it , and are not cognisant enough to understand whats happening to them completely .
That is very similar to the animal argument , its a rights/ethics issue .
Although we obviously do n't care enough to hide every animals genitalia so thats where the analogy falls off.But by your logic , if a mentally disabled child had pictures taken of them , it would be okay since they would never understand or care ( 1st paragraph ) But anyway , the fact that full body scanning could be enforced in anything except an automated fashion is pretty ludicrous but somehow I can still see it going into effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the argument is not nearly as different as you are making it seem when examined closely.
The main argument against child porn is that they have no control over it, and are not cognisant enough to understand whats happening to them completely.
That is very similar to the animal argument, its a rights/ethics issue.
Although we obviously don't care enough to hide every animals genitalia so thats where the analogy falls off.But by your logic, if a mentally disabled child had pictures taken of them, it would be okay since they would never understand or care (1st paragraph)But anyway, the fact that full body scanning could be enforced in anything except an automated fashion is pretty ludicrous but somehow I can still see it going into effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692710</id>
	<title>It's a VERY simple solution.</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1262953740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If it's a problem sir, you are more then welcome to not go through the scanner, however you and your family won't be getting on any planes"....</p><p>Stopping annoying kids from planes is personally a fantastic idea...  The reality is, however, when common sense kicks in, parents are going to put either security or the lost holiday infront of a lame media hyped paedo worry...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If it 's a problem sir , you are more then welcome to not go through the scanner , however you and your family wo n't be getting on any planes " ....Stopping annoying kids from planes is personally a fantastic idea... The reality is , however , when common sense kicks in , parents are going to put either security or the lost holiday infront of a lame media hyped paedo worry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If it's a problem sir, you are more then welcome to not go through the scanner, however you and your family won't be getting on any planes"....Stopping annoying kids from planes is personally a fantastic idea...  The reality is, however, when common sense kicks in, parents are going to put either security or the lost holiday infront of a lame media hyped paedo worry...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694980</id>
	<title>Re:Massive overreatctions</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1262968380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL."</p><p>I think that our course of action should be clear.  Let the War on Roads begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" More people die on Britain 's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL .
" I think that our course of action should be clear .
Let the War on Roads begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.
"I think that our course of action should be clear.
Let the War on Roads begin!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692734</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262954100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An unstoppable force can meet and pass through an immovable object, as long as that object is non-corporeal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An unstoppable force can meet and pass through an immovable object , as long as that object is non-corporeal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An unstoppable force can meet and pass through an immovable object, as long as that object is non-corporeal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693270</id>
	<title>Re:Odd timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262959740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that this person was more a laughing stock than a terrorist.  Ultimately we, the people, had a great laugh about weenie roasts, and a flying dutchman taking down the would-be terrorist.  The most shocking part of it was that there were no allusions to "Davy Jones' Locker".</p><p>Now our (the West's) sad governments are frantically trying to stop someone from bringing items that were unlikely to actually be successful at making an explosion.  Easiest solution to the problem is to arm all passengers.  When everyone's armed the rare weapon that would have otherwise slipped passed security would be meaningless.  Disclaimer:  I am an American, so of course I believe an armed populace is a safer populace despite (correlational) evidence to the contrary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that this person was more a laughing stock than a terrorist .
Ultimately we , the people , had a great laugh about weenie roasts , and a flying dutchman taking down the would-be terrorist .
The most shocking part of it was that there were no allusions to " Davy Jones ' Locker " .Now our ( the West 's ) sad governments are frantically trying to stop someone from bringing items that were unlikely to actually be successful at making an explosion .
Easiest solution to the problem is to arm all passengers .
When everyone 's armed the rare weapon that would have otherwise slipped passed security would be meaningless .
Disclaimer : I am an American , so of course I believe an armed populace is a safer populace despite ( correlational ) evidence to the contrary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that this person was more a laughing stock than a terrorist.
Ultimately we, the people, had a great laugh about weenie roasts, and a flying dutchman taking down the would-be terrorist.
The most shocking part of it was that there were no allusions to "Davy Jones' Locker".Now our (the West's) sad governments are frantically trying to stop someone from bringing items that were unlikely to actually be successful at making an explosion.
Easiest solution to the problem is to arm all passengers.
When everyone's armed the rare weapon that would have otherwise slipped passed security would be meaningless.
Disclaimer:  I am an American, so of course I believe an armed populace is a safer populace despite (correlational) evidence to the contrary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692006</id>
	<title>Don't think it's illegal...</title>
	<author>MrOion</author>
	<datestamp>1262944020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you mean that the hospital can't use CT- or CAT-scan on a child either?  I don't believe that is forbidden, nor do I think that the full body scanner violates that law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean that the hospital ca n't use CT- or CAT-scan on a child either ?
I do n't believe that is forbidden , nor do I think that the full body scanner violates that law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean that the hospital can't use CT- or CAT-scan on a child either?
I don't believe that is forbidden, nor do I think that the full body scanner violates that law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692460</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>AGMW</author>
	<datestamp>1262949900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Just because someone finds it arousing doesn't make it porn.</i></p> </div><p>
I'd offer up a counter-argument here and suggest that, like <i>Art</i>, Porn is in the eye of the beholder (should that be "hold of the beholder"?).
</p><p>
Sure, there's a variety of legal definitions, but they are, to all intents and purposes, to be used as <i>yardsticks</i> - indeed the (legal) definition of <i>Porn</i> is different in different countries (hell, probably different in different <i>states</i> in the US!) and has (and I'm sure will) change over time within a country.
</p><p>
Remember that <i>Legal Definitions</i> aren't <i>Fact</i>. You only have to look into the mirky world of fetish to see that Porn means different things to different people - Actually "Porn" probably means the same thing ("Things to get off on") but you get my drift. Consider the foot-fetish folks. People who like to see images of people smoking! Tub- and those 2:1 cup- ladies.
</p><p>
Now normally we're happy to let people float their boat in whatever way they like (as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses) but <i>Society</i> has decreed that some practises are verboten and try to make such materials as would arouse those folk verboten too. They've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand (this horny and no hornier) which has no real effect on those who crave the material but just follows the common Political adage that "Something Must Be Done: And <i>this</i> is <i>Something</i>".
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because someone finds it arousing does n't make it porn .
I 'd offer up a counter-argument here and suggest that , like Art , Porn is in the eye of the beholder ( should that be " hold of the beholder " ? ) .
Sure , there 's a variety of legal definitions , but they are , to all intents and purposes , to be used as yardsticks - indeed the ( legal ) definition of Porn is different in different countries ( hell , probably different in different states in the US !
) and has ( and I 'm sure will ) change over time within a country .
Remember that Legal Definitions are n't Fact .
You only have to look into the mirky world of fetish to see that Porn means different things to different people - Actually " Porn " probably means the same thing ( " Things to get off on " ) but you get my drift .
Consider the foot-fetish folks .
People who like to see images of people smoking !
Tub- and those 2 : 1 cup- ladies .
Now normally we 're happy to let people float their boat in whatever way they like ( as long as they do n't do it in the street and frighten the horses ) but Society has decreed that some practises are verboten and try to make such materials as would arouse those folk verboten too .
They 've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand ( this horny and no hornier ) which has no real effect on those who crave the material but just follows the common Political adage that " Something Must Be Done : And this is Something " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Just because someone finds it arousing doesn't make it porn.
I'd offer up a counter-argument here and suggest that, like Art, Porn is in the eye of the beholder (should that be "hold of the beholder"?).
Sure, there's a variety of legal definitions, but they are, to all intents and purposes, to be used as yardsticks - indeed the (legal) definition of Porn is different in different countries (hell, probably different in different states in the US!
) and has (and I'm sure will) change over time within a country.
Remember that Legal Definitions aren't Fact.
You only have to look into the mirky world of fetish to see that Porn means different things to different people - Actually "Porn" probably means the same thing ("Things to get off on") but you get my drift.
Consider the foot-fetish folks.
People who like to see images of people smoking!
Tub- and those 2:1 cup- ladies.
Now normally we're happy to let people float their boat in whatever way they like (as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses) but Society has decreed that some practises are verboten and try to make such materials as would arouse those folk verboten too.
They've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand (this horny and no hornier) which has no real effect on those who crave the material but just follows the common Political adage that "Something Must Be Done: And this is Something".

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702784</id>
	<title>Re:Massive overreatctions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262958540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.</i></p><p>Who needs Winston when Britain's got <i>talent</i>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.Who needs Winston when Britain 's got talent !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.Who needs Winston when Britain's got talent!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698224</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>dranga</author>
	<datestamp>1262980980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait.. I want to travel that way, it sounds much more fun....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait.. I want to travel that way , it sounds much more fun... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.. I want to travel that way, it sounds much more fun....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691936</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes children don't want to take a bath, this means that parents are forcing them against their will. Would taking a picture then be illegal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes children do n't want to take a bath , this means that parents are forcing them against their will .
Would taking a picture then be illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes children don't want to take a bath, this means that parents are forcing them against their will.
Would taking a picture then be illegal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693302</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1262959980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> it's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984. Which generally makes it hard to take seriously.</p></div><p>Isn't that what science fiction is for? (among other things). To give you a new perspective from which to look at things happening in the present... I'm not surprised 1984 has changed enough people's worldview (assuming they RTFB, which may be optimistic here on slashdot) that they sometimes look at the world through 1984 lenses. That's why it's a good book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984 .
Which generally makes it hard to take seriously.Is n't that what science fiction is for ?
( among other things ) .
To give you a new perspective from which to look at things happening in the present... I 'm not surprised 1984 has changed enough people 's worldview ( assuming they RTFB , which may be optimistic here on slashdot ) that they sometimes look at the world through 1984 lenses .
That 's why it 's a good book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984.
Which generally makes it hard to take seriously.Isn't that what science fiction is for?
(among other things).
To give you a new perspective from which to look at things happening in the present... I'm not surprised 1984 has changed enough people's worldview (assuming they RTFB, which may be optimistic here on slashdot) that they sometimes look at the world through 1984 lenses.
That's why it's a good book.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693632</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1262962380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not saying the USA is anything like Nazi Germany, but know your history.  Its not like in the early thirties you typical German citizen was having their daily jew hate either.  In fact its true that the majority really did not know (because they did not ask) the treatment the jews and many of the ones that did know did not approve.</p><p>A blind eye was turned because people were slowly thought to think of them as a different group and then the well its not me or mine thinking came in to play.  They sat by and did nothing about it in most cases.  This is the real danger.  Apathy can be fostered allowing a few crazy people to perpetrate horrible crimes.</p><p>If Germany in the thirties is any indication at all, its shows how quickly such a situation could be created in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not saying the USA is anything like Nazi Germany , but know your history .
Its not like in the early thirties you typical German citizen was having their daily jew hate either .
In fact its true that the majority really did not know ( because they did not ask ) the treatment the jews and many of the ones that did know did not approve.A blind eye was turned because people were slowly thought to think of them as a different group and then the well its not me or mine thinking came in to play .
They sat by and did nothing about it in most cases .
This is the real danger .
Apathy can be fostered allowing a few crazy people to perpetrate horrible crimes.If Germany in the thirties is any indication at all , its shows how quickly such a situation could be created in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not saying the USA is anything like Nazi Germany, but know your history.
Its not like in the early thirties you typical German citizen was having their daily jew hate either.
In fact its true that the majority really did not know (because they did not ask) the treatment the jews and many of the ones that did know did not approve.A blind eye was turned because people were slowly thought to think of them as a different group and then the well its not me or mine thinking came in to play.
They sat by and did nothing about it in most cases.
This is the real danger.
Apathy can be fostered allowing a few crazy people to perpetrate horrible crimes.If Germany in the thirties is any indication at all, its shows how quickly such a situation could be created in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691548</id>
	<title>If you think if the children, the terrorists win</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1262981580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think if the children, the terrorists win.  Wait.  No.  If you don't think of the children, the terrorists win.  Ahhh...my moral outrage is so confused right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think if the children , the terrorists win .
Wait. No .
If you do n't think of the children , the terrorists win .
Ahhh...my moral outrage is so confused right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think if the children, the terrorists win.
Wait.  No.
If you don't think of the children, the terrorists win.
Ahhh...my moral outrage is so confused right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693710</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1262962800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "scary" thing is there are a multitude of ways that somebody could design a plausibly deniable leotard that would scramble one of these scanners (how much metal is needed to block these things??)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " scary " thing is there are a multitude of ways that somebody could design a plausibly deniable leotard that would scramble one of these scanners ( how much metal is needed to block these things ? ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "scary" thing is there are a multitude of ways that somebody could design a plausibly deniable leotard that would scramble one of these scanners (how much metal is needed to block these things??
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694178</id>
	<title>Missing option- Fun Frames!</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1262965320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they will finally find a use for the hideous fun frames "feature" found on most camera phones and superimpose a swimsuit over the images of children.  As a bonus, for a few $ or pounds, you can get a printout.  Problem solved, and in a Fun way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they will finally find a use for the hideous fun frames " feature " found on most camera phones and superimpose a swimsuit over the images of children .
As a bonus , for a few $ or pounds , you can get a printout .
Problem solved , and in a Fun way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they will finally find a use for the hideous fun frames "feature" found on most camera phones and superimpose a swimsuit over the images of children.
As a bonus, for a few $ or pounds, you can get a printout.
Problem solved, and in a Fun way!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693918</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262963880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is in the UK though, which the article is about. So are pictures, in fact - the police are now using the law even to go after people with joke Tony the Tiger animations...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is in the UK though , which the article is about .
So are pictures , in fact - the police are now using the law even to go after people with joke Tony the Tiger animations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is in the UK though, which the article is about.
So are pictures, in fact - the police are now using the law even to go after people with joke Tony the Tiger animations...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694528</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>Trifthen</author>
	<datestamp>1262966760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, stop misrepresenting Goodwin's Law. Goodwin's Law, as stated, is not an accusation to be bandied about <i>because</i> somebody mentions Nazis. It only suggests that on the internet, the longer any argument goes on, the <i>probability</i> of a Nazi comparison approaches 1. It's more of a mathematical statement than anything else.</p><p>It was a wry observation that somehow transformed into a method of refuting an opposing argument, no matter how valid.</p><p>"I think I'm going to go slaughter some Jews."<br>"But... the Nazis did that!"<br>"ZOMG!! Goodwin's Law! You lose!"</p><p>Sorry, but that's now how it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , stop misrepresenting Goodwin 's Law .
Goodwin 's Law , as stated , is not an accusation to be bandied about because somebody mentions Nazis .
It only suggests that on the internet , the longer any argument goes on , the probability of a Nazi comparison approaches 1 .
It 's more of a mathematical statement than anything else.It was a wry observation that somehow transformed into a method of refuting an opposing argument , no matter how valid .
" I think I 'm going to go slaughter some Jews. " " But.. .
the Nazis did that ! " " ZOMG ! !
Goodwin 's Law !
You lose !
" Sorry , but that 's now how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, stop misrepresenting Goodwin's Law.
Goodwin's Law, as stated, is not an accusation to be bandied about because somebody mentions Nazis.
It only suggests that on the internet, the longer any argument goes on, the probability of a Nazi comparison approaches 1.
It's more of a mathematical statement than anything else.It was a wry observation that somehow transformed into a method of refuting an opposing argument, no matter how valid.
"I think I'm going to go slaughter some Jews.""But...
the Nazis did that!""ZOMG!!
Goodwin's Law!
You lose!
"Sorry, but that's now how it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
Bestiality is illegal. Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No, it isn't.
</p><p>
First of all, an animal won't care, as it grows older, that there is a picture of its genitalia, or it being involved in a sex act to which it did not consent, extant in the public space. Or even just lying there, exposed. People -- they generally will care. That even applies to baby pictures. Parents think they're cute. The subjects, not so much.
</p><p>
Secondly, the real issue here is that the problem law is one that outlaws not images of real people, but any rendering, artistic or otherwise, of a real or imaginary young person.
</p><p>
As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit. This is very harsh, but it still allows for privacy and most liberty, excepting that travel using someone else's privately owned conveyance has preconditions no sensible person would put up with (and hopefully, that will kill the air travel industry, finally teaching the idiots in government a lesson.)
</p><p>
It is much more disturbing that art and less-than-art expression, harming no individual, utterly victimless, is being cast as criminal activity. That's straight up repression, censorship, and foolish to boot.
</p><p>
Here, it would be straight up unconstitutional. Which is not to say, of course, that they wouldn't make laws against it anyway, they've stepped on eight of ten of the bill of rights amendments as it is, not to mention other parts of the constitution. But at least you'd have a leg to stand on to object.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bestiality is illegal .
Let 's outlaw all images of naked animals ; the logic is the same , unfortunately .
No , it is n't .
First of all , an animal wo n't care , as it grows older , that there is a picture of its genitalia , or it being involved in a sex act to which it did not consent , extant in the public space .
Or even just lying there , exposed .
People -- they generally will care .
That even applies to baby pictures .
Parents think they 're cute .
The subjects , not so much .
Secondly , the real issue here is that the problem law is one that outlaws not images of real people , but any rendering , artistic or otherwise , of a real or imaginary young person .
As far as the airport scanners go , ( 1 ) inform the public what they face , and ( 2 ) they can choose whether to submit .
This is very harsh , but it still allows for privacy and most liberty , excepting that travel using someone else 's privately owned conveyance has preconditions no sensible person would put up with ( and hopefully , that will kill the air travel industry , finally teaching the idiots in government a lesson .
) It is much more disturbing that art and less-than-art expression , harming no individual , utterly victimless , is being cast as criminal activity .
That 's straight up repression , censorship , and foolish to boot .
Here , it would be straight up unconstitutional .
Which is not to say , of course , that they would n't make laws against it anyway , they 've stepped on eight of ten of the bill of rights amendments as it is , not to mention other parts of the constitution .
But at least you 'd have a leg to stand on to object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Bestiality is illegal.
Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.
No, it isn't.
First of all, an animal won't care, as it grows older, that there is a picture of its genitalia, or it being involved in a sex act to which it did not consent, extant in the public space.
Or even just lying there, exposed.
People -- they generally will care.
That even applies to baby pictures.
Parents think they're cute.
The subjects, not so much.
Secondly, the real issue here is that the problem law is one that outlaws not images of real people, but any rendering, artistic or otherwise, of a real or imaginary young person.
As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit.
This is very harsh, but it still allows for privacy and most liberty, excepting that travel using someone else's privately owned conveyance has preconditions no sensible person would put up with (and hopefully, that will kill the air travel industry, finally teaching the idiots in government a lesson.
)

It is much more disturbing that art and less-than-art expression, harming no individual, utterly victimless, is being cast as criminal activity.
That's straight up repression, censorship, and foolish to boot.
Here, it would be straight up unconstitutional.
Which is not to say, of course, that they wouldn't make laws against it anyway, they've stepped on eight of ten of the bill of rights amendments as it is, not to mention other parts of the constitution.
But at least you'd have a leg to stand on to object.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience. People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times , and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders , I can tell you one thing : unlike 'regular ' porn , child porn plays to an entirely different audience .
People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience.
People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691776</id>
	<title>Weasel words exists in law, too</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1262941380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably the use of a "full body scanner" won't be considered "indecent" in court. Whereas pictures of a naked child holding a sex toy for instance would be.</p><p>If you can't tell the difference, you should be shot. The Guardian certainly deserves to be. Because presumably they would bring up the same argument against, say, visits to the pediatrician or medical imaging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably the use of a " full body scanner " wo n't be considered " indecent " in court .
Whereas pictures of a naked child holding a sex toy for instance would be.If you ca n't tell the difference , you should be shot .
The Guardian certainly deserves to be .
Because presumably they would bring up the same argument against , say , visits to the pediatrician or medical imaging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably the use of a "full body scanner" won't be considered "indecent" in court.
Whereas pictures of a naked child holding a sex toy for instance would be.If you can't tell the difference, you should be shot.
The Guardian certainly deserves to be.
Because presumably they would bring up the same argument against, say, visits to the pediatrician or medical imaging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700736</id>
	<title>Re:Odd timing</title>
	<author>chickenarise</author>
	<datestamp>1262948400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey everyone, it's a conspiracy theorist. Everyone point and laugh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey everyone , it 's a conspiracy theorist .
Everyone point and laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey everyone, it's a conspiracy theorist.
Everyone point and laugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693058</id>
	<title>Sniffer dogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262957760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why they are investing hundreds of thousands in these scanners that do not detect all forms of explsove anyway, when a sniffer dog's nose can find traces of just about any dangerous substance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why they are investing hundreds of thousands in these scanners that do not detect all forms of explsove anyway , when a sniffer dog 's nose can find traces of just about any dangerous substance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why they are investing hundreds of thousands in these scanners that do not detect all forms of explsove anyway, when a sniffer dog's nose can find traces of just about any dangerous substance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695230</id>
	<title>They do, HUH?</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1262969280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks again for the legal opinion,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>I'll take it for what it's worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks again for the legal opinion , /.I 'll take it for what it 's worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks again for the legal opinion, /.I'll take it for what it's worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878</id>
	<title>Massive overreatctions</title>
	<author>Quietlife2k</author>
	<datestamp>1262942340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.<br>
Each and every day we take far greater risks with our lives that that posed by terrorism.<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes things changed on 9/11... <br>
<br>
We all became wimps as our leaders showed fear...<br>
<br>
Where's the spirit of Winston when we need him ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>More people die on Britain 's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL .
Each and every day we take far greater risks with our lives that that posed by terrorism .
Yes things changed on 9/11.. . We all became wimps as our leaders showed fear.. . Where 's the spirit of Winston when we need him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.
Each and every day we take far greater risks with our lives that that posed by terrorism.
Yes things changed on 9/11... 

We all became wimps as our leaders showed fear...

Where's the spirit of Winston when we need him ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693436</id>
	<title>this logic is really dumb</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262961120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i mean, pick any cause of death: pancreatic cancer, slips and falls, drug overdoses, etc...</p><p>you can say about all these kinds of death: "well, more people die due to car accidents..." so therefore we shouldn't care about other causes of death?</p><p>quantity of dead alone, as the only determinant to how much attention we pay to a cause of death, is demonstrating on your part poor reasoning skills. you can't imagine other factors that go into determining how much attention we pay to a cause of death?</p><p>something like terrorism is caused by other people ON PURPOSE. this makes it pretty serious, unlike blameless agendaless accidents or blameless mindless disease. when a committed organization has announced their desire to kill as many people as possible, and shown real capability and intent and follow-thru, that's a big problem. a little creativity results in something like 9/11. does anyone doubt that if an al qaeda asshole got a hold of a suitcase nuke they wouldn't set it off in the middle of a major western city? is it panic and hysteria to worry about that possibility? no, its simply prudent. in fact, an attitude like yours: "whatever," is UNDERreacting. there is just as much danger in a false sense of complacency as there is in a false alarm. the only attitude that makes sense is a prudent logical analysis, and that prudent logical analysis means you take the threat posed by al qaeda and the wannabes very seriously. because they most certainly intend as much death as they can get away with</p><p>terrorism isn't like cancer or car accidents. you need to pay a lot of attention to it: the cause is someone else, and the intent is death. a committed group wants to kill you, and they'll kill millions if given the means and opportunity. so it really does make a lot of sense to focus on al qaeda and the wannabes a lot of time and attention, and it is in fact perfectly proportional to the nature of the threat, since it is composed of creative committed organized disciplined and determined human beings, trying to kill you. totally different threat than accidents and disease: you can pretty much gauge things like road conditions for car accidents, air temperature for disease, etc., and come up with a mathematical statistical model for the kinds of death you are faced with</p><p>but when your killer is other human beings, and you see an escalation in mayhem and murder and threats, as we do today in the west AND the muslim world (don't forget that the most dead from groups like al qaeda are muslims), then you pay ALOT of attention to the threat: it doesn't follow statistics. it could be a hundred dead one year, a million the next, unless you get a handle on things. destabilize certain regions with terrorism and you get a war. a war is how many dead? still sound like baseless fear to react so seriously to al qaeda and the wannabes?</p><p>there's nothing wimpy or fearful about it. of course, there are hysterical people who are overreacting. but they are just as stupid as people like you, who are clearly UNDERreacting. you think its "wimpy". this is low iq, an inability to adequately and logically ascertain the venomous potential in a threat. to you, only statistics counts as what is a threat to you. one dimensional idiocy</p><p>a logical, prudent, levelheaded analysis of the threat posed by the rise of militant fundamentalist assholes hellbent on killing a bunch of people means we should pay them a lot of attention and throw a lot of money at the problem. really. no fear panic hysteria or wimpiness in any of that analysis, simple logic and reason</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i mean , pick any cause of death : pancreatic cancer , slips and falls , drug overdoses , etc...you can say about all these kinds of death : " well , more people die due to car accidents... " so therefore we should n't care about other causes of death ? quantity of dead alone , as the only determinant to how much attention we pay to a cause of death , is demonstrating on your part poor reasoning skills .
you ca n't imagine other factors that go into determining how much attention we pay to a cause of death ? something like terrorism is caused by other people ON PURPOSE .
this makes it pretty serious , unlike blameless agendaless accidents or blameless mindless disease .
when a committed organization has announced their desire to kill as many people as possible , and shown real capability and intent and follow-thru , that 's a big problem .
a little creativity results in something like 9/11 .
does anyone doubt that if an al qaeda asshole got a hold of a suitcase nuke they would n't set it off in the middle of a major western city ?
is it panic and hysteria to worry about that possibility ?
no , its simply prudent .
in fact , an attitude like yours : " whatever , " is UNDERreacting .
there is just as much danger in a false sense of complacency as there is in a false alarm .
the only attitude that makes sense is a prudent logical analysis , and that prudent logical analysis means you take the threat posed by al qaeda and the wannabes very seriously .
because they most certainly intend as much death as they can get away withterrorism is n't like cancer or car accidents .
you need to pay a lot of attention to it : the cause is someone else , and the intent is death .
a committed group wants to kill you , and they 'll kill millions if given the means and opportunity .
so it really does make a lot of sense to focus on al qaeda and the wannabes a lot of time and attention , and it is in fact perfectly proportional to the nature of the threat , since it is composed of creative committed organized disciplined and determined human beings , trying to kill you .
totally different threat than accidents and disease : you can pretty much gauge things like road conditions for car accidents , air temperature for disease , etc. , and come up with a mathematical statistical model for the kinds of death you are faced withbut when your killer is other human beings , and you see an escalation in mayhem and murder and threats , as we do today in the west AND the muslim world ( do n't forget that the most dead from groups like al qaeda are muslims ) , then you pay ALOT of attention to the threat : it does n't follow statistics .
it could be a hundred dead one year , a million the next , unless you get a handle on things .
destabilize certain regions with terrorism and you get a war .
a war is how many dead ?
still sound like baseless fear to react so seriously to al qaeda and the wannabes ? there 's nothing wimpy or fearful about it .
of course , there are hysterical people who are overreacting .
but they are just as stupid as people like you , who are clearly UNDERreacting .
you think its " wimpy " .
this is low iq , an inability to adequately and logically ascertain the venomous potential in a threat .
to you , only statistics counts as what is a threat to you .
one dimensional idiocya logical , prudent , levelheaded analysis of the threat posed by the rise of militant fundamentalist assholes hellbent on killing a bunch of people means we should pay them a lot of attention and throw a lot of money at the problem .
really. no fear panic hysteria or wimpiness in any of that analysis , simple logic and reason</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i mean, pick any cause of death: pancreatic cancer, slips and falls, drug overdoses, etc...you can say about all these kinds of death: "well, more people die due to car accidents..." so therefore we shouldn't care about other causes of death?quantity of dead alone, as the only determinant to how much attention we pay to a cause of death, is demonstrating on your part poor reasoning skills.
you can't imagine other factors that go into determining how much attention we pay to a cause of death?something like terrorism is caused by other people ON PURPOSE.
this makes it pretty serious, unlike blameless agendaless accidents or blameless mindless disease.
when a committed organization has announced their desire to kill as many people as possible, and shown real capability and intent and follow-thru, that's a big problem.
a little creativity results in something like 9/11.
does anyone doubt that if an al qaeda asshole got a hold of a suitcase nuke they wouldn't set it off in the middle of a major western city?
is it panic and hysteria to worry about that possibility?
no, its simply prudent.
in fact, an attitude like yours: "whatever," is UNDERreacting.
there is just as much danger in a false sense of complacency as there is in a false alarm.
the only attitude that makes sense is a prudent logical analysis, and that prudent logical analysis means you take the threat posed by al qaeda and the wannabes very seriously.
because they most certainly intend as much death as they can get away withterrorism isn't like cancer or car accidents.
you need to pay a lot of attention to it: the cause is someone else, and the intent is death.
a committed group wants to kill you, and they'll kill millions if given the means and opportunity.
so it really does make a lot of sense to focus on al qaeda and the wannabes a lot of time and attention, and it is in fact perfectly proportional to the nature of the threat, since it is composed of creative committed organized disciplined and determined human beings, trying to kill you.
totally different threat than accidents and disease: you can pretty much gauge things like road conditions for car accidents, air temperature for disease, etc., and come up with a mathematical statistical model for the kinds of death you are faced withbut when your killer is other human beings, and you see an escalation in mayhem and murder and threats, as we do today in the west AND the muslim world (don't forget that the most dead from groups like al qaeda are muslims), then you pay ALOT of attention to the threat: it doesn't follow statistics.
it could be a hundred dead one year, a million the next, unless you get a handle on things.
destabilize certain regions with terrorism and you get a war.
a war is how many dead?
still sound like baseless fear to react so seriously to al qaeda and the wannabes?there's nothing wimpy or fearful about it.
of course, there are hysterical people who are overreacting.
but they are just as stupid as people like you, who are clearly UNDERreacting.
you think its "wimpy".
this is low iq, an inability to adequately and logically ascertain the venomous potential in a threat.
to you, only statistics counts as what is a threat to you.
one dimensional idiocya logical, prudent, levelheaded analysis of the threat posed by the rise of militant fundamentalist assholes hellbent on killing a bunch of people means we should pay them a lot of attention and throw a lot of money at the problem.
really. no fear panic hysteria or wimpiness in any of that analysis, simple logic and reason</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691808</id>
	<title>Please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262941740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone Think of the children!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone Think of the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone Think of the children!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691566</id>
	<title>Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1262981760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists.</p><p>The cage match we've all been waiting for.</p><p>Anyone taking bets?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists.The cage match we 've all been waiting for.Anyone taking bets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists.The cage match we've all been waiting for.Anyone taking bets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693266</id>
	<title>Fear and control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262959740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>[For the life of me I cannot find this post - a beef I have with Slashdot's threading - so, sorry - I am posting again.]<p>

This points to one reason that this is a valuable debate to have.</p><p>

Hysteria in this area has driven the courts and lawmakers to weaken and make ambiguous any similar distinction which in the *sane old days* pre-hysteria - say pre-1980s - remember those? - used to be quite strong.  The moralistic US as usual has the worst record here with high profile prosecutions (persecutions really) of artists and photographers who have been brave enough to depict naked children eg acclaimed photographer Jock Sturges (google). If Raphael was alive no doubt they'd prosecute him LOL!</p><p>

Despite the fact that an accepted definition of child pornography defined by an international treaty requires that, to meet this definition, a depiction has to exist primarily "for sexual purposes" and (iirc) that it primarily focuses on the sexual areas ie genitals etc, courts and lawmakers have continued to interpret the definition of child pornography ever more broadly as time has marched on.  Depictions, particularly arty nudist photography and family snapshots that once could not possibly have been considered pornographic and that do not even meet the above definition have resulted in serious prosecutions that plainly make no sense. </p><p>

In former, calmer times the vast majority of naked depictions of children were quite legal and I think I am correct in saying in the US these used to have to show actual sexual activity in order to qualify as pornographic.  So there was a category loosely called "child erotica" (but they shouldn't have used that label) and also a whole lot of nudist and art photography that was clearly legal.  It can still be argued in court, often with success, that it is legal.  The world did not end.  Nations did not collapse.  People rarely even cared about this stuff because an average reasonable person did not think of these as obscene in any way.  Only since abuse hysteria set in have governments delighted in this new-found mandate to censor, ban images and prosecute.  And it's so very politically correct and few will question it besides a few very very brave groups of artists and activists.</p><p>

We cannot control what images someone will be aroused by.  If someone is aroused by children's underwear, do we restrict the sales of underwear?  Defining a mere image - any explicit image - of a naked child or of any human body as "abuse" or "exploitative" is nuts.  What about advertising?  Many models are 13 or 14 when they start walking the catwalk in bikinis.  Previous generations would have found all this very strange, because it is very strange.  Photographing your naked babies and children (remember the babies on the rug?) at least once for the family album was pretty much mandatory. The fact that so many people lack the courage to say so these days should be of great concern.</p><p>

What the hell is wrong with nudes anyway, even highly explicit nudes with clear views of genitals?  We all have these, you know.  Hiding them doesn't mean they're not there. These are not disgusting, these are a part of being human.  Why do we think that shame (ie body hatred) is a good thing? It is interesting that, as the "war" waged on adult pornography by nutty Christian and separatist feminist groups was totally lost in the 80s, a newly broadened category of prohibited images emerged to take its place in the armory of social control. </p><p>

The control of images is enormously politically significant.  All regimes seek to control some type of image - be it the flag, the child, the woman, genitals, legs, whatever - this seems to be hard wired fact of societal control.  Beating up these issues by reference to one hysteria or another - fear of the (child's or adult's) body, fear of emerging sexuality in children, fear of our own sexuality, fear of Jews, fear of whatever - is how it's done.  It's all about fear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ For the life of me I can not find this post - a beef I have with Slashdot 's threading - so , sorry - I am posting again .
] This points to one reason that this is a valuable debate to have .
Hysteria in this area has driven the courts and lawmakers to weaken and make ambiguous any similar distinction which in the * sane old days * pre-hysteria - say pre-1980s - remember those ?
- used to be quite strong .
The moralistic US as usual has the worst record here with high profile prosecutions ( persecutions really ) of artists and photographers who have been brave enough to depict naked children eg acclaimed photographer Jock Sturges ( google ) .
If Raphael was alive no doubt they 'd prosecute him LOL !
Despite the fact that an accepted definition of child pornography defined by an international treaty requires that , to meet this definition , a depiction has to exist primarily " for sexual purposes " and ( iirc ) that it primarily focuses on the sexual areas ie genitals etc , courts and lawmakers have continued to interpret the definition of child pornography ever more broadly as time has marched on .
Depictions , particularly arty nudist photography and family snapshots that once could not possibly have been considered pornographic and that do not even meet the above definition have resulted in serious prosecutions that plainly make no sense .
In former , calmer times the vast majority of naked depictions of children were quite legal and I think I am correct in saying in the US these used to have to show actual sexual activity in order to qualify as pornographic .
So there was a category loosely called " child erotica " ( but they should n't have used that label ) and also a whole lot of nudist and art photography that was clearly legal .
It can still be argued in court , often with success , that it is legal .
The world did not end .
Nations did not collapse .
People rarely even cared about this stuff because an average reasonable person did not think of these as obscene in any way .
Only since abuse hysteria set in have governments delighted in this new-found mandate to censor , ban images and prosecute .
And it 's so very politically correct and few will question it besides a few very very brave groups of artists and activists .
We can not control what images someone will be aroused by .
If someone is aroused by children 's underwear , do we restrict the sales of underwear ?
Defining a mere image - any explicit image - of a naked child or of any human body as " abuse " or " exploitative " is nuts .
What about advertising ?
Many models are 13 or 14 when they start walking the catwalk in bikinis .
Previous generations would have found all this very strange , because it is very strange .
Photographing your naked babies and children ( remember the babies on the rug ?
) at least once for the family album was pretty much mandatory .
The fact that so many people lack the courage to say so these days should be of great concern .
What the hell is wrong with nudes anyway , even highly explicit nudes with clear views of genitals ?
We all have these , you know .
Hiding them does n't mean they 're not there .
These are not disgusting , these are a part of being human .
Why do we think that shame ( ie body hatred ) is a good thing ?
It is interesting that , as the " war " waged on adult pornography by nutty Christian and separatist feminist groups was totally lost in the 80s , a newly broadened category of prohibited images emerged to take its place in the armory of social control .
The control of images is enormously politically significant .
All regimes seek to control some type of image - be it the flag , the child , the woman , genitals , legs , whatever - this seems to be hard wired fact of societal control .
Beating up these issues by reference to one hysteria or another - fear of the ( child 's or adult 's ) body , fear of emerging sexuality in children , fear of our own sexuality , fear of Jews , fear of whatever - is how it 's done .
It 's all about fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[For the life of me I cannot find this post - a beef I have with Slashdot's threading - so, sorry - I am posting again.
]

This points to one reason that this is a valuable debate to have.
Hysteria in this area has driven the courts and lawmakers to weaken and make ambiguous any similar distinction which in the *sane old days* pre-hysteria - say pre-1980s - remember those?
- used to be quite strong.
The moralistic US as usual has the worst record here with high profile prosecutions (persecutions really) of artists and photographers who have been brave enough to depict naked children eg acclaimed photographer Jock Sturges (google).
If Raphael was alive no doubt they'd prosecute him LOL!
Despite the fact that an accepted definition of child pornography defined by an international treaty requires that, to meet this definition, a depiction has to exist primarily "for sexual purposes" and (iirc) that it primarily focuses on the sexual areas ie genitals etc, courts and lawmakers have continued to interpret the definition of child pornography ever more broadly as time has marched on.
Depictions, particularly arty nudist photography and family snapshots that once could not possibly have been considered pornographic and that do not even meet the above definition have resulted in serious prosecutions that plainly make no sense.
In former, calmer times the vast majority of naked depictions of children were quite legal and I think I am correct in saying in the US these used to have to show actual sexual activity in order to qualify as pornographic.
So there was a category loosely called "child erotica" (but they shouldn't have used that label) and also a whole lot of nudist and art photography that was clearly legal.
It can still be argued in court, often with success, that it is legal.
The world did not end.
Nations did not collapse.
People rarely even cared about this stuff because an average reasonable person did not think of these as obscene in any way.
Only since abuse hysteria set in have governments delighted in this new-found mandate to censor, ban images and prosecute.
And it's so very politically correct and few will question it besides a few very very brave groups of artists and activists.
We cannot control what images someone will be aroused by.
If someone is aroused by children's underwear, do we restrict the sales of underwear?
Defining a mere image - any explicit image - of a naked child or of any human body as "abuse" or "exploitative" is nuts.
What about advertising?
Many models are 13 or 14 when they start walking the catwalk in bikinis.
Previous generations would have found all this very strange, because it is very strange.
Photographing your naked babies and children (remember the babies on the rug?
) at least once for the family album was pretty much mandatory.
The fact that so many people lack the courage to say so these days should be of great concern.
What the hell is wrong with nudes anyway, even highly explicit nudes with clear views of genitals?
We all have these, you know.
Hiding them doesn't mean they're not there.
These are not disgusting, these are a part of being human.
Why do we think that shame (ie body hatred) is a good thing?
It is interesting that, as the "war" waged on adult pornography by nutty Christian and separatist feminist groups was totally lost in the 80s, a newly broadened category of prohibited images emerged to take its place in the armory of social control.
The control of images is enormously politically significant.
All regimes seek to control some type of image - be it the flag, the child, the woman, genitals, legs, whatever - this seems to be hard wired fact of societal control.
Beating up these issues by reference to one hysteria or another - fear of the (child's or adult's) body, fear of emerging sexuality in children, fear of our own sexuality, fear of Jews, fear of whatever - is how it's done.
It's all about fear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692020</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262944140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The scan image makes the dude look like a f*cking ken doll, true you could kinda make out his balls, but really, come on, ken dolls have a bulge too. Worse still, I fear that if children are exempt from such scans, terrorists/smugglers will start using children as mules (they probably already do, but this would certainly increase that).<br> <br>I understand the mentality behind such a reaction, but really, which is worse: a pedo possibly getting jollies from a doll like image of a child (internet child porn is a far more explicit and available), or a child being used as a bomb or drug mule?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The scan image makes the dude look like a f * cking ken doll , true you could kinda make out his balls , but really , come on , ken dolls have a bulge too .
Worse still , I fear that if children are exempt from such scans , terrorists/smugglers will start using children as mules ( they probably already do , but this would certainly increase that ) .
I understand the mentality behind such a reaction , but really , which is worse : a pedo possibly getting jollies from a doll like image of a child ( internet child porn is a far more explicit and available ) , or a child being used as a bomb or drug mule ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scan image makes the dude look like a f*cking ken doll, true you could kinda make out his balls, but really, come on, ken dolls have a bulge too.
Worse still, I fear that if children are exempt from such scans, terrorists/smugglers will start using children as mules (they probably already do, but this would certainly increase that).
I understand the mentality behind such a reaction, but really, which is worse: a pedo possibly getting jollies from a doll like image of a child (internet child porn is a far more explicit and available), or a child being used as a bomb or drug mule?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691396</id>
	<title>Yet another example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another example of how "think of the children" has a myriad of untended consequences.</p><p>It's not to say that I'm hugely in favor of full-body imaging devices, but I'm also not in favor of draconian laws about "pseudo-images" which serve little to no purpose as well.</p><p>How about we agree that if nobody gets hurt, we won't press charges.</p><p>Lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another example of how " think of the children " has a myriad of untended consequences.It 's not to say that I 'm hugely in favor of full-body imaging devices , but I 'm also not in favor of draconian laws about " pseudo-images " which serve little to no purpose as well.How about we agree that if nobody gets hurt , we wo n't press charges.Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another example of how "think of the children" has a myriad of untended consequences.It's not to say that I'm hugely in favor of full-body imaging devices, but I'm also not in favor of draconian laws about "pseudo-images" which serve little to no purpose as well.How about we agree that if nobody gets hurt, we won't press charges.Lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693536</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262961720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mandate that children's clothing be scanned.  Present each child with a choice.  Either:</p><p>1) the child chooses to disrobe, and their clothing is scanned. Security staff visually inspect the naked child. As long as there is no photographs or video taken, then no child porn is created. Looking at naked children is not a crime; it is only a crime to look at pictures of naked children.  Or</p><p>2) the child opts to walk through the body scanner.  It is now the child who is responsible for creating the child porn. You can therefore arrest the child, preventing a known child pornographer and possible terrorist from boarding the aircraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mandate that children 's clothing be scanned .
Present each child with a choice .
Either : 1 ) the child chooses to disrobe , and their clothing is scanned .
Security staff visually inspect the naked child .
As long as there is no photographs or video taken , then no child porn is created .
Looking at naked children is not a crime ; it is only a crime to look at pictures of naked children .
Or2 ) the child opts to walk through the body scanner .
It is now the child who is responsible for creating the child porn .
You can therefore arrest the child , preventing a known child pornographer and possible terrorist from boarding the aircraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mandate that children's clothing be scanned.
Present each child with a choice.
Either:1) the child chooses to disrobe, and their clothing is scanned.
Security staff visually inspect the naked child.
As long as there is no photographs or video taken, then no child porn is created.
Looking at naked children is not a crime; it is only a crime to look at pictures of naked children.
Or2) the child opts to walk through the body scanner.
It is now the child who is responsible for creating the child porn.
You can therefore arrest the child, preventing a known child pornographer and possible terrorist from boarding the aircraft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692558</id>
	<title>Re:Odd timing</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1262951280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.</p></div><p>Odd? It's not odd, it's good business! Stocks in both ASEI and OSI have had a <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&amp;s=ASEI&amp;l=on&amp;z=m&amp;q=l&amp;c=OSIS" title="yahoo.com">nice rise</a> [yahoo.com] since Christmas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east , thru Europe , all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.Odd ?
It 's not odd , it 's good business !
Stocks in both ASEI and OSI have had a nice rise [ yahoo.com ] since Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.Odd?
It's not odd, it's good business!
Stocks in both ASEI and OSI have had a nice rise [yahoo.com] since Christmas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691904</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Was it really proper child porn, as in nudity of prepubescent children?</p></div><p>This sentence is wrong. Porn is, by definition, material intended to provoke prurient interest. Just because someone finds it arousing doesn't make it porn. Witness the underwear section of clothing catalogues -  that's certainly not porn but I'm sure when you were 13 you looked through them just like most other 13-year-olds (well, like they did when I was a lad and dinosaurs grew on trees... these days you'd just hit the internet and download some porn, no wonder kids are having sex younger).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was it really proper child porn , as in nudity of prepubescent children ? This sentence is wrong .
Porn is , by definition , material intended to provoke prurient interest .
Just because someone finds it arousing does n't make it porn .
Witness the underwear section of clothing catalogues - that 's certainly not porn but I 'm sure when you were 13 you looked through them just like most other 13-year-olds ( well , like they did when I was a lad and dinosaurs grew on trees... these days you 'd just hit the internet and download some porn , no wonder kids are having sex younger ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was it really proper child porn, as in nudity of prepubescent children?This sentence is wrong.
Porn is, by definition, material intended to provoke prurient interest.
Just because someone finds it arousing doesn't make it porn.
Witness the underwear section of clothing catalogues -  that's certainly not porn but I'm sure when you were 13 you looked through them just like most other 13-year-olds (well, like they did when I was a lad and dinosaurs grew on trees... these days you'd just hit the internet and download some porn, no wonder kids are having sex younger).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694890</id>
	<title>Add this to the system</title>
	<author>Get on the boat</author>
	<datestamp>1262968080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's some research on 'A Privacy Algorithm for 3D Human Body Scans' for the no-no spots.</p><p><a href="http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2006/tr\_cylab06001.html" title="cmu.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2006/tr\_cylab06001.html</a> [cmu.edu]</p><p>Suppose it wouldn't be a stretch to adopt to issue at hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's some research on 'A Privacy Algorithm for 3D Human Body Scans ' for the no-no spots.http : //www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2006/tr \ _cylab06001.html [ cmu.edu ] Suppose it would n't be a stretch to adopt to issue at hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's some research on 'A Privacy Algorithm for 3D Human Body Scans' for the no-no spots.http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2006/tr\_cylab06001.html [cmu.edu]Suppose it wouldn't be a stretch to adopt to issue at hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692792</id>
	<title>Re:Odd timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262954640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the irony that the European Parliament voted against those scanners being introduced - after buying a whole heap of them for security purposes at the parliament buildings. Now it may sell them off to airports, hastening the introduction of the very thing they voted against! Which kind of shows their current (lack of) power...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the irony that the European Parliament voted against those scanners being introduced - after buying a whole heap of them for security purposes at the parliament buildings .
Now it may sell them off to airports , hastening the introduction of the very thing they voted against !
Which kind of shows their current ( lack of ) power.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the irony that the European Parliament voted against those scanners being introduced - after buying a whole heap of them for security purposes at the parliament buildings.
Now it may sell them off to airports, hastening the introduction of the very thing they voted against!
Which kind of shows their current (lack of) power...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692376</id>
	<title>Stupid friggin article</title>
	<author>Spiked\_Three</author>
	<datestamp>1262948940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stupid friggin article.<br>
First off, in order for the law to have any effect, you have to find someone willing to press charges.<br>
Second, the charged person will have a right to be judged by their peers.<br>
So, do you think anyone would prosecute someone under this law? Do you think any jury (including a judge) would convict someone for these circumstances?<br>
This is how and why the laws work in the US, are they that much different in the UK?. Whoever wrote (and posted here) the article is just digging for attention on a non-issue.<br>
Now if images did leak out onto the internet, then you have a case against anyone who allowed or enabled that leak. So, I would be all for stringent historical logging of usage of these machines. Some way to identify all persons who had access that could have leaked an inappropriate image, be it child or not.  So, like other things, quit trying to stop a good thing based on exaggeration, and spend more effort discussing and fixing the real problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid friggin article .
First off , in order for the law to have any effect , you have to find someone willing to press charges .
Second , the charged person will have a right to be judged by their peers .
So , do you think anyone would prosecute someone under this law ?
Do you think any jury ( including a judge ) would convict someone for these circumstances ?
This is how and why the laws work in the US , are they that much different in the UK ? .
Whoever wrote ( and posted here ) the article is just digging for attention on a non-issue .
Now if images did leak out onto the internet , then you have a case against anyone who allowed or enabled that leak .
So , I would be all for stringent historical logging of usage of these machines .
Some way to identify all persons who had access that could have leaked an inappropriate image , be it child or not .
So , like other things , quit trying to stop a good thing based on exaggeration , and spend more effort discussing and fixing the real problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid friggin article.
First off, in order for the law to have any effect, you have to find someone willing to press charges.
Second, the charged person will have a right to be judged by their peers.
So, do you think anyone would prosecute someone under this law?
Do you think any jury (including a judge) would convict someone for these circumstances?
This is how and why the laws work in the US, are they that much different in the UK?.
Whoever wrote (and posted here) the article is just digging for attention on a non-issue.
Now if images did leak out onto the internet, then you have a case against anyone who allowed or enabled that leak.
So, I would be all for stringent historical logging of usage of these machines.
Some way to identify all persons who had access that could have leaked an inappropriate image, be it child or not.
So, like other things, quit trying to stop a good thing based on exaggeration, and spend more effort discussing and fixing the real problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695182</id>
	<title>Re:this logic is really dumb</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262969160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether the deaths were intentional or not is irrelevant.  What matters is whether they are preventable or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether the deaths were intentional or not is irrelevant .
What matters is whether they are preventable or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether the deaths were intentional or not is irrelevant.
What matters is whether they are preventable or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696070</id>
	<title>I don't imagine any of you have actually *seen*...</title>
	<author>SwedishChef</author>
	<datestamp>1262972160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing that 99\% of you have never actually seen what a "full body scan" looks like. I'm also guessing that a significant percentage of you believe that the x-ray glasses you see ads for in comic books really work. For some education - instead of hype - you might want to take a look at the NPR piece broadcast this morning about full body scans. This link <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122289282" title="npr.org">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122289282</a> [npr.org] references a transcript and includes an image of one of the scans.</p><p>I suppose some slashdotters might consider this porn. Then again, in 1914 a woman's bare leg was considered porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that 99 \ % of you have never actually seen what a " full body scan " looks like .
I 'm also guessing that a significant percentage of you believe that the x-ray glasses you see ads for in comic books really work .
For some education - instead of hype - you might want to take a look at the NPR piece broadcast this morning about full body scans .
This link http : //www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php ? storyId = 122289282 [ npr.org ] references a transcript and includes an image of one of the scans.I suppose some slashdotters might consider this porn .
Then again , in 1914 a woman 's bare leg was considered porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that 99\% of you have never actually seen what a "full body scan" looks like.
I'm also guessing that a significant percentage of you believe that the x-ray glasses you see ads for in comic books really work.
For some education - instead of hype - you might want to take a look at the NPR piece broadcast this morning about full body scans.
This link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122289282 [npr.org] references a transcript and includes an image of one of the scans.I suppose some slashdotters might consider this porn.
Then again, in 1914 a woman's bare leg was considered porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426</id>
	<title>1984 came late...</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1262893380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we continue to allow such invasion to our personal dignity as full body scans, scatter ray etc in public places WITHOUT DUE REASON OR WARRANT we are only one step away from having cameras and microphones in all of our houses. For anti-terrorism measures, instead of investing far more in either more labour intensive approaches such as metal detectors or explosive/chemical sniffers, governments have chosen far more invasive options with dubious increase in safety for the innocent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we continue to allow such invasion to our personal dignity as full body scans , scatter ray etc in public places WITHOUT DUE REASON OR WARRANT we are only one step away from having cameras and microphones in all of our houses .
For anti-terrorism measures , instead of investing far more in either more labour intensive approaches such as metal detectors or explosive/chemical sniffers , governments have chosen far more invasive options with dubious increase in safety for the innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we continue to allow such invasion to our personal dignity as full body scans, scatter ray etc in public places WITHOUT DUE REASON OR WARRANT we are only one step away from having cameras and microphones in all of our houses.
For anti-terrorism measures, instead of investing far more in either more labour intensive approaches such as metal detectors or explosive/chemical sniffers, governments have chosen far more invasive options with dubious increase in safety for the innocent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691642</id>
	<title>here's an idea...</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1262982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the hell do they need to long term store it?  It doesn't help you to say "oh yeah, he did have a weapon on him after all" 4 hours later.  Don't let the image stream ever hit the hard drive.  Just keep it in ram and wipe it when the next one steps through.  Wait, why is this even a computer?  Why isn't it just a monitor for the machine and strictly a video feed?<br>
Oh who cares, the staff just whip out their cell phone cameras anyway if they see the secret transvestite senator walk though.  Then it doesn't matter how much security they put on it.  And who cares if they're storing pics or not if some pedo decides to get a job with airport security so he can look at naked kids all day?  The article's solution was to "tell people not to violate CP laws."  Oh yeah, telling pedos not to do anything pedo-ish always works.  I say modify or dump the scanners!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell do they need to long term store it ?
It does n't help you to say " oh yeah , he did have a weapon on him after all " 4 hours later .
Do n't let the image stream ever hit the hard drive .
Just keep it in ram and wipe it when the next one steps through .
Wait , why is this even a computer ?
Why is n't it just a monitor for the machine and strictly a video feed ?
Oh who cares , the staff just whip out their cell phone cameras anyway if they see the secret transvestite senator walk though .
Then it does n't matter how much security they put on it .
And who cares if they 're storing pics or not if some pedo decides to get a job with airport security so he can look at naked kids all day ?
The article 's solution was to " tell people not to violate CP laws .
" Oh yeah , telling pedos not to do anything pedo-ish always works .
I say modify or dump the scanners !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell do they need to long term store it?
It doesn't help you to say "oh yeah, he did have a weapon on him after all" 4 hours later.
Don't let the image stream ever hit the hard drive.
Just keep it in ram and wipe it when the next one steps through.
Wait, why is this even a computer?
Why isn't it just a monitor for the machine and strictly a video feed?
Oh who cares, the staff just whip out their cell phone cameras anyway if they see the secret transvestite senator walk though.
Then it doesn't matter how much security they put on it.
And who cares if they're storing pics or not if some pedo decides to get a job with airport security so he can look at naked kids all day?
The article's solution was to "tell people not to violate CP laws.
"  Oh yeah, telling pedos not to do anything pedo-ish always works.
I say modify or dump the scanners!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412</id>
	<title>Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1262893260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But back to those privacy concerns. Some lawyers believe having a young traveller pass through the full-body scanners could violate child pornography laws. As a result, Canada is exempting passengers under-18 from the new measures."</p><p>from <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/06/f-rfa-common.html" title="www.cbc.ca">http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/06/f-rfa-common.html</a> [www.cbc.ca]</p><p>Personally, if I were asked to go through one I would opt for the pat-down instead.  Want to get your rocks off feeling my rocks?  Go for it, but I won't have my naked image stored in a computer that politicians claim is hack proof and will get deleted right after.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But back to those privacy concerns .
Some lawyers believe having a young traveller pass through the full-body scanners could violate child pornography laws .
As a result , Canada is exempting passengers under-18 from the new measures .
" from http : //www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/06/f-rfa-common.html [ www.cbc.ca ] Personally , if I were asked to go through one I would opt for the pat-down instead .
Want to get your rocks off feeling my rocks ?
Go for it , but I wo n't have my naked image stored in a computer that politicians claim is hack proof and will get deleted right after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But back to those privacy concerns.
Some lawyers believe having a young traveller pass through the full-body scanners could violate child pornography laws.
As a result, Canada is exempting passengers under-18 from the new measures.
"from http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/06/f-rfa-common.html [www.cbc.ca]Personally, if I were asked to go through one I would opt for the pat-down instead.
Want to get your rocks off feeling my rocks?
Go for it, but I won't have my naked image stored in a computer that politicians claim is hack proof and will get deleted right after.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30707030</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>wbhauck</author>
	<datestamp>1263050220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Totally take the pat-down.  I don't want naked pictures of me on the internet.  I don't want to spend the rest of my life yelling, "I WAS IN THE POOL!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally take the pat-down .
I do n't want naked pictures of me on the internet .
I do n't want to spend the rest of my life yelling , " I WAS IN THE POOL !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally take the pat-down.
I don't want naked pictures of me on the internet.
I don't want to spend the rest of my life yelling, "I WAS IN THE POOL!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691662</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supposedly, for now, they'll just stop scanning those younger than 18 years.</p><p>Which, given the age of maturity in the culture that supplies most terrorists today, is kinda pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supposedly , for now , they 'll just stop scanning those younger than 18 years.Which , given the age of maturity in the culture that supplies most terrorists today , is kinda pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supposedly, for now, they'll just stop scanning those younger than 18 years.Which, given the age of maturity in the culture that supplies most terrorists today, is kinda pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695200</id>
	<title>Solvable problem</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1262969220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so I don't really get why anyone could get their rocks off looking at one of those body scan images.  Then again, I don't get why people get off on kiddie porn either.  But, IMHO, this might be solvable.  Lots of cameras now have face-detection software in them.  Why not modify it to detect boobs and other naughty bits and then just put a blue circle over the top?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so I do n't really get why anyone could get their rocks off looking at one of those body scan images .
Then again , I do n't get why people get off on kiddie porn either .
But , IMHO , this might be solvable .
Lots of cameras now have face-detection software in them .
Why not modify it to detect boobs and other naughty bits and then just put a blue circle over the top ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so I don't really get why anyone could get their rocks off looking at one of those body scan images.
Then again, I don't get why people get off on kiddie porn either.
But, IMHO, this might be solvable.
Lots of cameras now have face-detection software in them.
Why not modify it to detect boobs and other naughty bits and then just put a blue circle over the top?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693450</id>
	<title>I suggest</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1262961240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest all those that support this get on a plane with a terrorist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest all those that support this get on a plane with a terrorist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest all those that support this get on a plane with a terrorist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691768</id>
	<title>Medical uses?</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1262941200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, full body scanners are a fucking poor solution to terrorism for two reasons:<br>1. Terrorists will find another way around it anyway.<br>2. You're X-raying someone every single time they fly.  It doesn't take a radiologist to tell you that lots of x-rays are bad.<br><br>We're effectively willing to slowly sterilize frequent fliers over the next 10 years because of some jackasses putting explosives in their shoes/underwear.  The terrorists have already won. I mean, I don't think that even the most extreme terrorist would have thought that they would be able to have a government agree to irradiate its citizens.<br><br>But anyway, how do doctors get around taking x-rays and CT scans of minors for medical reasons?  I mean, it's not like children have never broken their pelvis before.  Surely there already exists some exception to this child pornography law to allow the use of x-rays and CT scans for legitimate purposes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , full body scanners are a fucking poor solution to terrorism for two reasons : 1 .
Terrorists will find another way around it anyway.2 .
You 're X-raying someone every single time they fly .
It does n't take a radiologist to tell you that lots of x-rays are bad.We 're effectively willing to slowly sterilize frequent fliers over the next 10 years because of some jackasses putting explosives in their shoes/underwear .
The terrorists have already won .
I mean , I do n't think that even the most extreme terrorist would have thought that they would be able to have a government agree to irradiate its citizens.But anyway , how do doctors get around taking x-rays and CT scans of minors for medical reasons ?
I mean , it 's not like children have never broken their pelvis before .
Surely there already exists some exception to this child pornography law to allow the use of x-rays and CT scans for legitimate purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, full body scanners are a fucking poor solution to terrorism for two reasons:1.
Terrorists will find another way around it anyway.2.
You're X-raying someone every single time they fly.
It doesn't take a radiologist to tell you that lots of x-rays are bad.We're effectively willing to slowly sterilize frequent fliers over the next 10 years because of some jackasses putting explosives in their shoes/underwear.
The terrorists have already won.
I mean, I don't think that even the most extreme terrorist would have thought that they would be able to have a government agree to irradiate its citizens.But anyway, how do doctors get around taking x-rays and CT scans of minors for medical reasons?
I mean, it's not like children have never broken their pelvis before.
Surely there already exists some exception to this child pornography law to allow the use of x-rays and CT scans for legitimate purposes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700522</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>Kaell Meynn</author>
	<datestamp>1262947440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>V50's law.  So mote it be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>V50 's law .
So mote it be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>V50's law.
So mote it be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694762</id>
	<title>Re:Weasel words exists in law, too</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1262967660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Guardian is not making the complaint, it's reporting on it. And it's not just reporting on a complaint - it's reporting on a complaint which the government has reacted to by exempting people under 18 during the trials of the scanners. There is no way a responsible newspaper could not report on these events.
<p>
And while you think the topic should be easy to decide (and I would concur there is no way in hell this qualifies as CP) - the department of transport doesn't think so, and the Manchester airport doesn't think so. Quite possibly because they are aware that CP laws have long lost all touch with common sense. Regardless what you think of that: it's news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Guardian is not making the complaint , it 's reporting on it .
And it 's not just reporting on a complaint - it 's reporting on a complaint which the government has reacted to by exempting people under 18 during the trials of the scanners .
There is no way a responsible newspaper could not report on these events .
And while you think the topic should be easy to decide ( and I would concur there is no way in hell this qualifies as CP ) - the department of transport does n't think so , and the Manchester airport does n't think so .
Quite possibly because they are aware that CP laws have long lost all touch with common sense .
Regardless what you think of that : it 's news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Guardian is not making the complaint, it's reporting on it.
And it's not just reporting on a complaint - it's reporting on a complaint which the government has reacted to by exempting people under 18 during the trials of the scanners.
There is no way a responsible newspaper could not report on these events.
And while you think the topic should be easy to decide (and I would concur there is no way in hell this qualifies as CP) - the department of transport doesn't think so, and the Manchester airport doesn't think so.
Quite possibly because they are aware that CP laws have long lost all touch with common sense.
Regardless what you think of that: it's news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698280</id>
	<title>Think of the merchandising opportunities</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1262981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like clothing that has in it a substance that will be seen by the scanners... So you can have a big smiley face or "Hi TSA!" message written across your body when they scan you.</p><p>What will a full-body scanner see clearly that won't set off the metal detector? We need that stuff in some kind of paint pen.</p><p>I expect to see some sort of kit for this at ThinkGeek in the coming year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like clothing that has in it a substance that will be seen by the scanners... So you can have a big smiley face or " Hi TSA !
" message written across your body when they scan you.What will a full-body scanner see clearly that wo n't set off the metal detector ?
We need that stuff in some kind of paint pen.I expect to see some sort of kit for this at ThinkGeek in the coming year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like clothing that has in it a substance that will be seen by the scanners... So you can have a big smiley face or "Hi TSA!
" message written across your body when they scan you.What will a full-body scanner see clearly that won't set off the metal detector?
We need that stuff in some kind of paint pen.I expect to see some sort of kit for this at ThinkGeek in the coming year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692686</id>
	<title>All this talk of the pictures ... radiation?!</title>
	<author>Taldren\_DR</author>
	<datestamp>1262953380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone seems to immediately focus in on the fact that these things show naked images of people and completely ignore the fact that these images are taken by low energy x-rays that bounce off after traveling a few millimeters into the skin.

They have already shown that even these low energy x-rays can damage DNA, Chromosomes, and (in males) the ability to produce healthy children (The scrotum isn't thick enough to reflect all the radiation).

Radiation is an accumulative issue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... being a frequent flyer already at increased risk just due to altitude in our atmosphere, but having full body irradiation once or twice a week could very well cause severe medical issues.

I don't know about anyone else, but I fear cancer more then being killed by a terrorist on an airplane. And the idea that we are opting into getting cancer just makes it worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone seems to immediately focus in on the fact that these things show naked images of people and completely ignore the fact that these images are taken by low energy x-rays that bounce off after traveling a few millimeters into the skin .
They have already shown that even these low energy x-rays can damage DNA , Chromosomes , and ( in males ) the ability to produce healthy children ( The scrotum is n't thick enough to reflect all the radiation ) .
Radiation is an accumulative issue ... being a frequent flyer already at increased risk just due to altitude in our atmosphere , but having full body irradiation once or twice a week could very well cause severe medical issues .
I do n't know about anyone else , but I fear cancer more then being killed by a terrorist on an airplane .
And the idea that we are opting into getting cancer just makes it worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone seems to immediately focus in on the fact that these things show naked images of people and completely ignore the fact that these images are taken by low energy x-rays that bounce off after traveling a few millimeters into the skin.
They have already shown that even these low energy x-rays can damage DNA, Chromosomes, and (in males) the ability to produce healthy children (The scrotum isn't thick enough to reflect all the radiation).
Radiation is an accumulative issue ... being a frequent flyer already at increased risk just due to altitude in our atmosphere, but having full body irradiation once or twice a week could very well cause severe medical issues.
I don't know about anyone else, but I fear cancer more then being killed by a terrorist on an airplane.
And the idea that we are opting into getting cancer just makes it worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698406</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believe it or not, that was my mom's doctoral thesis!  Sending objects through tubes by sealing them in capsules and pushing them around using air.  I think they used it for mail delivery at her university at one point...</p><p>(anon to beat the stalkers)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , that was my mom 's doctoral thesis !
Sending objects through tubes by sealing them in capsules and pushing them around using air .
I think they used it for mail delivery at her university at one point... ( anon to beat the stalkers )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, that was my mom's doctoral thesis!
Sending objects through tubes by sealing them in capsules and pushing them around using air.
I think they used it for mail delivery at her university at one point...(anon to beat the stalkers)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693396</id>
	<title>Think of the Children, no think of the Terrorists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262960760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Think of the Children"... "Think of the Terrorists"... "Think of the Children"... "Think of the Terrorists"... "Children"... "Terrorists"... "Children"... "Terrorists"... BANG!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Think of the Children " ... " Think of the Terrorists " ... " Think of the Children " ... " Think of the Terrorists " ... " Children " ... " Terrorists " ... " Children " ... " Terrorists " ... BANG !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Think of the Children"... "Think of the Terrorists"... "Think of the Children"... "Think of the Terrorists"... "Children"... "Terrorists"... "Children"... "Terrorists"... BANG!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692150</id>
	<title>Re:Weasel words exists in law, too</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1262946120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, while there is a difference between nudity (or even "vague outline nudity silhouette thing") and indecency, people have been too wound up in to frothing panic about paedophiles for them to realise that. Instead they'll have more than a few people complaining and filling law suits on their false association.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , while there is a difference between nudity ( or even " vague outline nudity silhouette thing " ) and indecency , people have been too wound up in to frothing panic about paedophiles for them to realise that .
Instead they 'll have more than a few people complaining and filling law suits on their false association .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, while there is a difference between nudity (or even "vague outline nudity silhouette thing") and indecency, people have been too wound up in to frothing panic about paedophiles for them to realise that.
Instead they'll have more than a few people complaining and filling law suits on their false association.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691378</id>
	<title>Government</title>
	<author>dufachi</author>
	<datestamp>1262893020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not illegal if the government does it. Right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not illegal if the government does it .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not illegal if the government does it.
Right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692750</id>
	<title>It's ust an excuse for fat adults</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262954280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not all images of children is child pornography. Otherwise parents taking pictures of their child in the bath should be arrested. The only reason people are bringing this up now (rather than when this technology was announced) is because it's become a reality that everyone is going to have to do this so all the fat people or people with nasty genitalia don't want stand in one of these machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all images of children is child pornography .
Otherwise parents taking pictures of their child in the bath should be arrested .
The only reason people are bringing this up now ( rather than when this technology was announced ) is because it 's become a reality that everyone is going to have to do this so all the fat people or people with nasty genitalia do n't want stand in one of these machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all images of children is child pornography.
Otherwise parents taking pictures of their child in the bath should be arrested.
The only reason people are bringing this up now (rather than when this technology was announced) is because it's become a reality that everyone is going to have to do this so all the fat people or people with nasty genitalia don't want stand in one of these machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30701624</id>
	<title>Leave em at home...</title>
	<author>leroyk</author>
	<datestamp>1262952600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bottom line, If you do not want to be scanned or have increased security please stay home. Then my fat butt can ooze into your empty seat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line , If you do not want to be scanned or have increased security please stay home .
Then my fat butt can ooze into your empty seat : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line, If you do not want to be scanned or have increased security please stay home.
Then my fat butt can ooze into your empty seat :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695168</id>
	<title>Defeatism</title>
	<author>jjo</author>
	<datestamp>1262969100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"1. Terrorists will find another way around it anyway."</i>
<p>
This is a silly argument that one often sees nowadays.  Of course no measure we take will be perfect, and the terrorists will exploit whatever gaps we leave in the protection, but the point is not to create a perfect system, but to make it more difficult for the terrorists so that there will be fewer attacks.
</p><p>
One might as well argue against equipping cars with door locks, since thieves can and do find ways around them.  The point is to make it more difficult for them, so a large number of potential evil-doers will give up before they start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 1 .
Terrorists will find another way around it anyway .
" This is a silly argument that one often sees nowadays .
Of course no measure we take will be perfect , and the terrorists will exploit whatever gaps we leave in the protection , but the point is not to create a perfect system , but to make it more difficult for the terrorists so that there will be fewer attacks .
One might as well argue against equipping cars with door locks , since thieves can and do find ways around them .
The point is to make it more difficult for them , so a large number of potential evil-doers will give up before they start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"1.
Terrorists will find another way around it anyway.
"

This is a silly argument that one often sees nowadays.
Of course no measure we take will be perfect, and the terrorists will exploit whatever gaps we leave in the protection, but the point is not to create a perfect system, but to make it more difficult for the terrorists so that there will be fewer attacks.
One might as well argue against equipping cars with door locks, since thieves can and do find ways around them.
The point is to make it more difficult for them, so a large number of potential evil-doers will give up before they start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694160</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>rockbottoms</author>
	<datestamp>1262965260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Children are small.</p></div><p>
Have you <i>seen</i> the ones here in the US?
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Chandler</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Children are small .
Have you seen the ones here in the US ?
/Chandler</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Children are small.
Have you seen the ones here in the US?
/Chandler
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692920</id>
	<title>Re:False Dichotomy</title>
	<author>ocularsinister</author>
	<datestamp>1262956380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy shit, I *absolutely* *do* *NOT* want to see Ann Widdecombe in the buff. Ever. So lets scrap that idea right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit , I * absolutely * * do * * NOT * want to see Ann Widdecombe in the buff .
Ever. So lets scrap that idea right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit, I *absolutely* *do* *NOT* want to see Ann Widdecombe in the buff.
Ever. So lets scrap that idea right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693838</id>
	<title>Frisking...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262963460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would probably be illegal if I attempted to frisk some woman in the street, too.  Surely, security personnel have some kind of exemption to laws like this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would probably be illegal if I attempted to frisk some woman in the street , too .
Surely , security personnel have some kind of exemption to laws like this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would probably be illegal if I attempted to frisk some woman in the street, too.
Surely, security personnel have some kind of exemption to laws like this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692874</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1262955720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> <i><br>Bestiality is illegal. Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.<br></i> </p></div></blockquote><p>No, it isn't.</p></div><p>Yes, it is - depending on where you are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bestiality is illegal .
Let 's outlaw all images of naked animals ; the logic is the same , unfortunately .
No , it is n't.Yes , it is - depending on where you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Bestiality is illegal.
Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.
No, it isn't.Yes, it is - depending on where you are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488</id>
	<title>It's the only logical solution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262894280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We'll have to put kids in opaque balls and cast them out to sea so that nobody can look at them or touch them or think about them. It's the only way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll have to put kids in opaque balls and cast them out to sea so that nobody can look at them or touch them or think about them .
It 's the only way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll have to put kids in opaque balls and cast them out to sea so that nobody can look at them or touch them or think about them.
It's the only way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702254</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>alan\_dershowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1262955480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the UK where this is being discussed, but in the USA the pictures have to have lascivious intent, which the scanners do not. that doesn't mean that zealous neighbors/police don't turn in people and create problems, but the law at the federal level says that the depictions must be lascivious (or some similar wording implying for sexual purposes.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the UK where this is being discussed , but in the USA the pictures have to have lascivious intent , which the scanners do not .
that does n't mean that zealous neighbors/police do n't turn in people and create problems , but the law at the federal level says that the depictions must be lascivious ( or some similar wording implying for sexual purposes .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the UK where this is being discussed, but in the USA the pictures have to have lascivious intent, which the scanners do not.
that doesn't mean that zealous neighbors/police don't turn in people and create problems, but the law at the federal level says that the depictions must be lascivious (or some similar wording implying for sexual purposes.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692342</id>
	<title>Re:It's the only logical solution.</title>
	<author>BrokenCube</author>
	<datestamp>1262948460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been advocating this for years - glad to see that other people are starting to agree!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been advocating this for years - glad to see that other people are starting to agree !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been advocating this for years - glad to see that other people are starting to agree!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691460</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Child porn laws need to differentiate between images of voluntarily nude children in the bathtub and children forced to show their privates to strangers so that they can fly to visit grandma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Child porn laws need to differentiate between images of voluntarily nude children in the bathtub and children forced to show their privates to strangers so that they can fly to visit grandma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child porn laws need to differentiate between images of voluntarily nude children in the bathtub and children forced to show their privates to strangers so that they can fly to visit grandma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: exempt children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Children are small.  We can transport them with a series of high speed air powered tubes.  Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Children are small .
We can transport them with a series of high speed air powered tubes .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Children are small.
We can transport them with a series of high speed air powered tubes.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695500</id>
	<title>someone credibly intending your death</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262970240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is always relevant</p><p>and it is preventable</p><p>plenty of terrorist plots have succeeded. plenty of terrorist plots have been foiled. the struggle goes on. stopping terrorists will never be 100\% successful. but ceasing the struggle simply results in the terrorist plot success rate going to 100\%. that's acceptable to you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is always relevantand it is preventableplenty of terrorist plots have succeeded .
plenty of terrorist plots have been foiled .
the struggle goes on .
stopping terrorists will never be 100 \ % successful .
but ceasing the struggle simply results in the terrorist plot success rate going to 100 \ % .
that 's acceptable to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is always relevantand it is preventableplenty of terrorist plots have succeeded.
plenty of terrorist plots have been foiled.
the struggle goes on.
stopping terrorists will never be 100\% successful.
but ceasing the struggle simply results in the terrorist plot success rate going to 100\%.
that's acceptable to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693912</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>AioKits</author>
	<datestamp>1262963880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There needs to be some sort of Godwin's law for 1984 comparisons.</p></div><p>I propose we call it, Orwell's Law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be some sort of Godwin 's law for 1984 comparisons.I propose we call it , Orwell 's Law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be some sort of Godwin's law for 1984 comparisons.I propose we call it, Orwell's Law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30703054</id>
	<title>Re:Odd timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262959980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.</p><p>Here's a theory: Body-scanner makers dupe some poor loser into thinking he's dealing with some terrorist cell, rather than some con-men they have hired. They equip him with a malfunctioning set of explosive boxers and send him on his merry way 'to paradise'. Detroit in this case.</p><p>The poor loser can't properly explode (of course not), but the overall panic is used for highly effective sales calls and lobbying efforts.</p><p>Well done! Just in time when most politicians had withdrawn support for those body scanners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree.Here 's a theory : Body-scanner makers dupe some poor loser into thinking he 's dealing with some terrorist cell , rather than some con-men they have hired .
They equip him with a malfunctioning set of explosive boxers and send him on his merry way 'to paradise' .
Detroit in this case.The poor loser ca n't properly explode ( of course not ) , but the overall panic is used for highly effective sales calls and lobbying efforts.Well done !
Just in time when most politicians had withdrawn support for those body scanners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.Here's a theory: Body-scanner makers dupe some poor loser into thinking he's dealing with some terrorist cell, rather than some con-men they have hired.
They equip him with a malfunctioning set of explosive boxers and send him on his merry way 'to paradise'.
Detroit in this case.The poor loser can't properly explode (of course not), but the overall panic is used for highly effective sales calls and lobbying efforts.Well done!
Just in time when most politicians had withdrawn support for those body scanners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30735470</id>
	<title>Re:Massive overreatctions</title>
	<author>jc79</author>
	<datestamp>1263301020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.</i> </p><p>Wrong: <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208" title="statistics.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">stats for annual British road deaths</a> [statistics.gov.uk]; according to wikipedia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September\_11\_attacks" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">just under 3000 people</a> [wikipedia.org] died during the September 11th attacks. That puts the 2007 road death figure in line with that single attack.</p></div><p>The Sept 11 attacks did not happen in the UK</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More people die on Britain 's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL .
Wrong : stats for annual British road deaths [ statistics.gov.uk ] ; according to wikipedia , just under 3000 people [ wikipedia.org ] died during the September 11th attacks .
That puts the 2007 road death figure in line with that single attack.The Sept 11 attacks did not happen in the UK</tokentext>
<sentencetext> More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.
Wrong: stats for annual British road deaths [statistics.gov.uk]; according to wikipedia, just under 3000 people [wikipedia.org] died during the September 11th attacks.
That puts the 2007 road death figure in line with that single attack.The Sept 11 attacks did not happen in the UK
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691792</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>jessica\_alba</author>
	<datestamp>1262941620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't suppose a highly motivated, global organization that specializes in terror warrants some poor sap having to look at your ass.  and, btw, i don't see how PUBLIC security has anything to do with someone bugging your PRIVATE residence, but, by all means, keep rocking the tin foil hat like its fucking 1984</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't suppose a highly motivated , global organization that specializes in terror warrants some poor sap having to look at your ass .
and , btw , i do n't see how PUBLIC security has anything to do with someone bugging your PRIVATE residence , but , by all means , keep rocking the tin foil hat like its fucking 1984</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't suppose a highly motivated, global organization that specializes in terror warrants some poor sap having to look at your ass.
and, btw, i don't see how PUBLIC security has anything to do with someone bugging your PRIVATE residence, but, by all means, keep rocking the tin foil hat like its fucking 1984</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693262</id>
	<title>Re:Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists</title>
	<author>SunTzuWarmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1262959740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In a battle where there can be no victor, who will win?!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In a battle where there can be no victor , who will win ? !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In a battle where there can be no victor, who will win?!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692122</id>
	<title>Re:It's the only logical solution.</title>
	<author>phagstrom</author>
	<datestamp>1262945700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, we can't do that. Think of the children...wait..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , we ca n't do that .
Think of the children...wait. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, we can't do that.
Think of the children...wait..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702288</id>
	<title>Re:Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists</title>
	<author>alan\_dershowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1262955660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's awesome because pedos versus terrorists could be conceivably construed as "Aliens versus Predators"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's awesome because pedos versus terrorists could be conceivably construed as " Aliens versus Predators "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's awesome because pedos versus terrorists could be conceivably construed as "Aliens versus Predators"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694652</id>
	<title>Maybe it's time to push back?</title>
	<author>X86Daddy</author>
	<datestamp>1262967300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if everyone of the 4chan generation took this to the next level... what if everyone who didn't have too many qualms about it puts on a big grin and says to the TSA folk, "Heh, I request a pat-down instead!"  Turn their shit against them and make them squirm.  They thought they were gonna be <em>giving</em> the rapes; ha.  Seriously, whenever the government decides to make our lives miserable for theatrical purposes, there are often exploits and flaws that we could use to make sure they're just as miserable with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if everyone of the 4chan generation took this to the next level... what if everyone who did n't have too many qualms about it puts on a big grin and says to the TSA folk , " Heh , I request a pat-down instead !
" Turn their shit against them and make them squirm .
They thought they were gon na be giving the rapes ; ha .
Seriously , whenever the government decides to make our lives miserable for theatrical purposes , there are often exploits and flaws that we could use to make sure they 're just as miserable with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if everyone of the 4chan generation took this to the next level... what if everyone who didn't have too many qualms about it puts on a big grin and says to the TSA folk, "Heh, I request a pat-down instead!
"  Turn their shit against them and make them squirm.
They thought they were gonna be giving the rapes; ha.
Seriously, whenever the government decides to make our lives miserable for theatrical purposes, there are often exploits and flaws that we could use to make sure they're just as miserable with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692068</id>
	<title>Re:Unstoppable force, immovable object</title>
	<author>geckipede</author>
	<datestamp>1262945100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Creating incentives for terrorists to bring their kids along for the ride... what a great idea. Mass murder has for too long been considered something that you just don't take the family along to join in with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Creating incentives for terrorists to bring their kids along for the ride... what a great idea .
Mass murder has for too long been considered something that you just do n't take the family along to join in with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creating incentives for terrorists to bring their kids along for the ride... what a great idea.
Mass murder has for too long been considered something that you just don't take the family along to join in with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691392</id>
	<title>It's disgusting, frankly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How deep we've dug ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How deep we 've dug ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How deep we've dug ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>V50</author>
	<datestamp>1262947680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There needs to be some sort of Godwin's law for 1984 comparisons.</p><p>No, I don't like the airport paranoia, but to compare airport security tech to 1984 is rather hysterical.</p><p>It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.</p><p>Yet on any article about the government on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. it's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984. Which generally makes it hard to take seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be some sort of Godwin 's law for 1984 comparisons.No , I do n't like the airport paranoia , but to compare airport security tech to 1984 is rather hysterical.It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.Yet on any article about the government on / .
it 's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984 .
Which generally makes it hard to take seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be some sort of Godwin's law for 1984 comparisons.No, I don't like the airport paranoia, but to compare airport security tech to 1984 is rather hysterical.It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.Yet on any article about the government on /.
it's a simple matter of time when reading the comments before one compares whatever the privacy violation of the day is to 1984.
Which generally makes it hard to take seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694912</id>
	<title>MIssing the point in the UK</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1262968140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First RTFA, see that picture of the naked guy? That's a real person, BTW.</p><blockquote><div><p>Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.</p></div></blockquote><p>So the thing is that you are invading people's privacy, but it's with technology so it's right? I don't think so, that technology makes it easy for Security personal to watch me naked doesn't mean I like it now, it's an invasion of my privacy and I don't want them to do it unless they have a good reason.</p><p>The irony is that personal privacy of adult civilians is a joke in the UK to the extent that the best argument you can make against it is that it is a form of CP, and that only works because they are that paranoid of it. That's completely fucked up.</p><p>Full body scanning of children is right or wrong for the same reasons that full body scanning of adults would be right or wrong. It's like, oh you are an adult now, you no loger deserves clothes. Fucked up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First RTFA , see that picture of the naked guy ?
That 's a real person , BTW.Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to " virtual strip-searching " and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.So the thing is that you are invading people 's privacy , but it 's with technology so it 's right ?
I do n't think so , that technology makes it easy for Security personal to watch me naked does n't mean I like it now , it 's an invasion of my privacy and I do n't want them to do it unless they have a good reason.The irony is that personal privacy of adult civilians is a joke in the UK to the extent that the best argument you can make against it is that it is a form of CP , and that only works because they are that paranoid of it .
That 's completely fucked up.Full body scanning of children is right or wrong for the same reasons that full body scanning of adults would be right or wrong .
It 's like , oh you are an adult now , you no loger deserves clothes .
Fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First RTFA, see that picture of the naked guy?
That's a real person, BTW.Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.So the thing is that you are invading people's privacy, but it's with technology so it's right?
I don't think so, that technology makes it easy for Security personal to watch me naked doesn't mean I like it now, it's an invasion of my privacy and I don't want them to do it unless they have a good reason.The irony is that personal privacy of adult civilians is a joke in the UK to the extent that the best argument you can make against it is that it is a form of CP, and that only works because they are that paranoid of it.
That's completely fucked up.Full body scanning of children is right or wrong for the same reasons that full body scanning of adults would be right or wrong.
It's like, oh you are an adult now, you no loger deserves clothes.
Fucked up.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693272</id>
	<title>If the children haven't done anything wrong, ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262959800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the children haven't done anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide.  They're obviously terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the children have n't done anything wrong , then they have nothing to hide .
They 're obviously terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the children haven't done anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide.
They're obviously terrorists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692476</id>
	<title>Re:Massive overreatctions</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1262950140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.</i></p><p>Wrong: <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208" title="statistics.gov.uk">stats for annual British road deaths</a> [statistics.gov.uk]; according to wikipedia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September\_11\_attacks" title="wikipedia.org">just under 3000 people</a> [wikipedia.org] died during the September 11th attacks. That puts the 2007 road death figure in line with that single attack.</p><p>I agree that this is an overreaction, but if you're going to draw a comparison to prove a point, make sure it actually does prove your point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More people die on Britain 's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.Wrong : stats for annual British road deaths [ statistics.gov.uk ] ; according to wikipedia , just under 3000 people [ wikipedia.org ] died during the September 11th attacks .
That puts the 2007 road death figure in line with that single attack.I agree that this is an overreaction , but if you 're going to draw a comparison to prove a point , make sure it actually does prove your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More people die on Britain's roads each YEAR than have died as a result of terrorism in TOTAL.Wrong: stats for annual British road deaths [statistics.gov.uk]; according to wikipedia, just under 3000 people [wikipedia.org] died during the September 11th attacks.
That puts the 2007 road death figure in line with that single attack.I agree that this is an overreaction, but if you're going to draw a comparison to prove a point, make sure it actually does prove your point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30697078</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1262976300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There needs to be some sort of Godwin's law for 1984 comparisons.</p></div><p>Well, in the meantime, can you please bridge that gap for us?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No, I don't like the airport paranoia, but to compare airport security tech to 1984 is rather hysterical.

It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.</p></div><p>Thank you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be some sort of Godwin 's law for 1984 comparisons.Well , in the meantime , can you please bridge that gap for us ? No , I do n't like the airport paranoia , but to compare airport security tech to 1984 is rather hysterical .
It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.Thank you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be some sort of Godwin's law for 1984 comparisons.Well, in the meantime, can you please bridge that gap for us?No, I don't like the airport paranoia, but to compare airport security tech to 1984 is rather hysterical.
It would be claiming anti-Arab feelings and sentiment make the US just like Nazi Germany.Thank you!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695192</id>
	<title>Re:1984 came late...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262969220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The slippery slope argument... hmm... There is a huge chasm between requiring you to submit to whatever procedure in a public area and doing anything when you are at home.  Fear mongering goes both ways, and while the main reasons for wanting to get these body scanners at the airports is based on fear mongering on one extreme... this type of argument is no better as it is just inspiring fear on the opposite side.</p><p>The parent isn't insightful at all.  If anything the parent is closer to a troll as there is no productive argument in his post.</p><p>Dear sirs on either extreme of this argument,<br>Please take your respective heads out of your respective asses and stop sensationalizing everything.  It doesn't help. In fact it does the opposite of help.<br>Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The slippery slope argument... hmm... There is a huge chasm between requiring you to submit to whatever procedure in a public area and doing anything when you are at home .
Fear mongering goes both ways , and while the main reasons for wanting to get these body scanners at the airports is based on fear mongering on one extreme... this type of argument is no better as it is just inspiring fear on the opposite side.The parent is n't insightful at all .
If anything the parent is closer to a troll as there is no productive argument in his post.Dear sirs on either extreme of this argument,Please take your respective heads out of your respective asses and stop sensationalizing everything .
It does n't help .
In fact it does the opposite of help.Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The slippery slope argument... hmm... There is a huge chasm between requiring you to submit to whatever procedure in a public area and doing anything when you are at home.
Fear mongering goes both ways, and while the main reasons for wanting to get these body scanners at the airports is based on fear mongering on one extreme... this type of argument is no better as it is just inspiring fear on the opposite side.The parent isn't insightful at all.
If anything the parent is closer to a troll as there is no productive argument in his post.Dear sirs on either extreme of this argument,Please take your respective heads out of your respective asses and stop sensationalizing everything.
It doesn't help.
In fact it does the opposite of help.Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691606</id>
	<title>go by boat!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wtf, if you fly, you get screened. you don't want to get screened, don't fly. bloody simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wtf , if you fly , you get screened .
you do n't want to get screened , do n't fly .
bloody simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wtf, if you fly, you get screened.
you don't want to get screened, don't fly.
bloody simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696090</id>
	<title>Re:someone credibly intending your death</title>
	<author>Quietlife2k</author>
	<datestamp>1262972220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My percentage of acceptable risk if far higher than yours.<br>
<br>
Now you want to talk trade off ?<br>
Without these scanners my odds of dying due terrorism do not change from around 1 in 9.3million - whilst my I still run the 1 in 8000 of dying in a road accident.<br>
<br>
You won't take a 1 in 9.3 Million chance yet you run a 1 in 8000 chance every time you use a British road.<br>
<br>
Personally I'm not keen on the smell of abject fear where everything in the name of "security" is a MUST HAVE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My percentage of acceptable risk if far higher than yours .
Now you want to talk trade off ?
Without these scanners my odds of dying due terrorism do not change from around 1 in 9.3million - whilst my I still run the 1 in 8000 of dying in a road accident .
You wo n't take a 1 in 9.3 Million chance yet you run a 1 in 8000 chance every time you use a British road .
Personally I 'm not keen on the smell of abject fear where everything in the name of " security " is a MUST HAVE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My percentage of acceptable risk if far higher than yours.
Now you want to talk trade off ?
Without these scanners my odds of dying due terrorism do not change from around 1 in 9.3million - whilst my I still run the 1 in 8000 of dying in a road accident.
You won't take a 1 in 9.3 Million chance yet you run a 1 in 8000 chance every time you use a British road.
Personally I'm not keen on the smell of abject fear where everything in the name of "security" is a MUST HAVE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693460</id>
	<title>Islamist Minors</title>
	<author>kencf0618</author>
	<datestamp>1262961240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, this certainly lets Islamist terrorist minors off the hook.</p><p>Horny suicidal Muslim 17-year-olds need not fear Pedobear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this certainly lets Islamist terrorist minors off the hook.Horny suicidal Muslim 17-year-olds need not fear Pedobear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this certainly lets Islamist terrorist minors off the hook.Horny suicidal Muslim 17-year-olds need not fear Pedobear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30703054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30707030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30707576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30697078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30708832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30735470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_0245200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30703054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30707576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30697078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30735470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695182
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695500
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30696090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30702254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691670
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691904
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691588
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691706
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694042
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693898
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692874
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30708832
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692224
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691856
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30691552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30694618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30698406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30695924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30693452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30707030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_0245200.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30692686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_0245200.30700432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
