<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_14_2226219</id>
	<title>Obama Appointee Sunstein Favors Infiltrating Online Groups</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263464880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>megamerican writes <i>"President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated in a recent paper the <a href="http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/">'cognitive infiltration'</a> of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories' like the ones surrounding 9/11 via 'chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine' those groups. Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=121884">banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'</a> and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. You can find a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1084585">PDF of his paper here</a>. For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO">COINTELPRO</a> focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers. More recently <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Raw\_obtains\_CENTCOM\_email\_to\_bloggers\_1016.html">CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers</a> 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.' In January 2009 the <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/usaf-blog-respo/">USAF released a flow-chart</a> for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>megamerican writes " President Barack Obama 's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration ' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories ' like the ones surrounding 9/11 via 'chat rooms , online social networks , or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine ' those groups .
Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories , under our definition , have turned out to be true ' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors ' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine .
You can find a PDF of his paper here .
For decades ( 1956-1971 ) , the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting , marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents , most notably the Black Panthers .
More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information , as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information .
' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers ' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>megamerican writes "President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories' like the ones surrounding 9/11 via 'chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine' those groups.
Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.
You can find a PDF of his paper here.
For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers.
More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.
' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773090</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>Hairy1</author>
	<datestamp>1263473880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The paper is based on the totally false premise that "Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law." What? Who said? Come on! It's a total non sequitur. If holding crazy beliefs unsupported by evidence is going to be held as a basis for believing such people might become violent you better also infiltrate all those crazy religious groups. You know, the Catholics, Protestants, Baptists etc. In fact there is at least some evidence that religious nutjobs are a danger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The paper is based on the totally false premise that " Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks , including risks of violence , and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law .
" What ?
Who said ?
Come on !
It 's a total non sequitur .
If holding crazy beliefs unsupported by evidence is going to be held as a basis for believing such people might become violent you better also infiltrate all those crazy religious groups .
You know , the Catholics , Protestants , Baptists etc .
In fact there is at least some evidence that religious nutjobs are a danger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paper is based on the totally false premise that "Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law.
" What?
Who said?
Come on!
It's a total non sequitur.
If holding crazy beliefs unsupported by evidence is going to be held as a basis for believing such people might become violent you better also infiltrate all those crazy religious groups.
You know, the Catholics, Protestants, Baptists etc.
In fact there is at least some evidence that religious nutjobs are a danger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772178</id>
	<title>Free means free</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1263469560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>First they came for the 9/11 truthers, and I said noth- well, actually, anything they can do to mess with *those* loons is OK by me. Can they eff up ther anti-vaxxers, too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for the 9/11 truthers , and I said noth- well , actually , anything they can do to mess with * those * loons is OK by me .
Can they eff up ther anti-vaxxers , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for the 9/11 truthers, and I said noth- well, actually, anything they can do to mess with *those* loons is OK by me.
Can they eff up ther anti-vaxxers, too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775820</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you mean... "right of center" in america? you know it's called plain right in the rest of the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean... " right of center " in america ?
you know it 's called plain right in the rest of the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean... "right of center" in america?
you know it's called plain right in the rest of the world?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772506</id>
	<title>This isnt news</title>
	<author>jdcope</author>
	<datestamp>1263471120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will this post will be considered a reason to spy on Slashdot? Its really too bad Glenn Beck is such a wanker, because he gets put down for bring things like this up. He outed Sunstein months ago. Half of the people Obama has appointed have similar views. I am beginning to regret voting for the guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this post will be considered a reason to spy on Slashdot ?
Its really too bad Glenn Beck is such a wanker , because he gets put down for bring things like this up .
He outed Sunstein months ago .
Half of the people Obama has appointed have similar views .
I am beginning to regret voting for the guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this post will be considered a reason to spy on Slashdot?
Its really too bad Glenn Beck is such a wanker, because he gets put down for bring things like this up.
He outed Sunstein months ago.
Half of the people Obama has appointed have similar views.
I am beginning to regret voting for the guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772956</id>
	<title>How about spending money on...</title>
	<author>mitrevski</author>
	<datestamp>1263473340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... protecting government infrastructure from computer attacks. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122203789.html)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... preventing leaks on blue prints/details of military hardware (prototype or otherwise) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-02-marineone\_N.htm)

Fellow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ readers may be able to add a few more venues that need attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... protecting government infrastructure from computer attacks .
( http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122203789.html ) ... preventing leaks on blue prints/details of military hardware ( prototype or otherwise ) ( http : //www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-02-marineone \ _N.htm ) Fellow ./ readers may be able to add a few more venues that need attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... protecting government infrastructure from computer attacks.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122203789.html) ... preventing leaks on blue prints/details of military hardware (prototype or otherwise) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-02-marineone\_N.htm)

Fellow ./ readers may be able to add a few more venues that need attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778472</id>
	<title>Ah-HA!</title>
	<author>EgNagRah</author>
	<datestamp>1263568680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew it would happen, that's why I made my website.  <a href="http://infiltrationcrowbar.com/" title="infiltrationcrowbar.com" rel="nofollow">http://infiltrationcrowbar.com/</a> [infiltrationcrowbar.com]  Even if they do try, we'll just start up our own dark-nets and pray the tanks don't move into the neighborhood.
  --Bad karma on slashdot doesn't make me a bad person, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew it would happen , that 's why I made my website .
http : //infiltrationcrowbar.com/ [ infiltrationcrowbar.com ] Even if they do try , we 'll just start up our own dark-nets and pray the tanks do n't move into the neighborhood .
--Bad karma on slashdot does n't make me a bad person , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew it would happen, that's why I made my website.
http://infiltrationcrowbar.com/ [infiltrationcrowbar.com]  Even if they do try, we'll just start up our own dark-nets and pray the tanks don't move into the neighborhood.
--Bad karma on slashdot doesn't make me a bad person, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773550</id>
	<title>Obligatory the Onion report</title>
	<author>Lakitu</author>
	<datestamp>1263476520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>health-care and national security all in one!  it's perfect.</p><p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in\_the\_know\_is\_the\_government" title="theonion.com">http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in\_the\_know\_is\_the\_government</a> [theonion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>health-care and national security all in one !
it 's perfect.http : //www.theonion.com/content/video/in \ _the \ _know \ _is \ _the \ _government [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>health-care and national security all in one!
it's perfect.http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in\_the\_know\_is\_the\_government [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774192</id>
	<title>Who can spot the infiltrated posts now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how many posts here<br>are actually "infiltrative"<br>in nature to undermine the<br>"wrong views" slashdotters<br>hold here?</p><p>How great, now we have<br>1: China Gov't is here<br>2: RIAA is here<br>3: Scientology is here<br>3: and now USA gov't<br>4: ???<br>5: Soviet Russia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many posts hereare actually " infiltrative " in nature to undermine the " wrong views " slashdottershold here ? How great , now we have1 : China Gov't is here2 : RIAA is here3 : Scientology is here3 : and now USA gov't4 : ? ?
? 5 : Soviet Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many posts hereare actually "infiltrative"in nature to undermine the"wrong views" slashdottershold here?How great, now we have1: China Gov't is here2: RIAA is here3: Scientology is here3: and now USA gov't4: ??
?5: Soviet Russia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772428</id>
	<title>WAIT. WAIT. That's MY job!</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1263470760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't help but recall :
<a href="http://xkcd.com/386/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/386/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but recall : http : //xkcd.com/386/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but recall :
http://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773190</id>
	<title>Re:There is NOTHING in there suggesting a ban!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263474420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just as citizens can speak, so can the government</p></div><p>The government has NO right to an opinion whatsoever. The government serves its citizens. That is all. It has no right to any stances of its own outside of that and since I don't know of any large groups of people demanding the government look into this, this is plain tyranny and nothing else.</p><p>Why do people continuously forget that government officials are NOT our leaders? They are our servants, and as such, they only have free speech when they are off the clock....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as citizens can speak , so can the governmentThe government has NO right to an opinion whatsoever .
The government serves its citizens .
That is all .
It has no right to any stances of its own outside of that and since I do n't know of any large groups of people demanding the government look into this , this is plain tyranny and nothing else.Why do people continuously forget that government officials are NOT our leaders ?
They are our servants , and as such , they only have free speech when they are off the clock... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as citizens can speak, so can the governmentThe government has NO right to an opinion whatsoever.
The government serves its citizens.
That is all.
It has no right to any stances of its own outside of that and since I don't know of any large groups of people demanding the government look into this, this is plain tyranny and nothing else.Why do people continuously forget that government officials are NOT our leaders?
They are our servants, and as such, they only have free speech when they are off the clock....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773120</id>
	<title>Libel and Slander for Misrepresenting Fact</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1263474000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Banning websites which post right wing rumors"</p><p>I don't think that is the right approach.  Rather, I'd like to see libel and slander laws broadened to include things like scientific theories, and history itself.  Big, well funded news agencies (or "think tanks) on the left and right are not held accountable for anything they say.</p><p>The only accounting is if another news agency with as much viewers challenges the assertions by the other news agency.  But by that time, the damage is done, and often the viewers of one news agency are not the audience for the other.</p><p>The only way that we can start getting more truth in reporting, and accurate pictures of reality on complex issues, is to hold organizations accountable.  I think anyone, a citizen, the government, a scientist, etc.., should be able to sue, say, Fox News, over their coverage of issue X, and let a jury decide if Fox reporting is libel or slander against the truth behind issue X.</p><p>I do not know what ramifications extending the definitions of libel and slander to concepts/ideas/theories would have (not a laywer), but there has to be something we can do to reign in reporting when it is blatantly false beyond all measure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Banning websites which post right wing rumors " I do n't think that is the right approach .
Rather , I 'd like to see libel and slander laws broadened to include things like scientific theories , and history itself .
Big , well funded news agencies ( or " think tanks ) on the left and right are not held accountable for anything they say.The only accounting is if another news agency with as much viewers challenges the assertions by the other news agency .
But by that time , the damage is done , and often the viewers of one news agency are not the audience for the other.The only way that we can start getting more truth in reporting , and accurate pictures of reality on complex issues , is to hold organizations accountable .
I think anyone , a citizen , the government , a scientist , etc.. , should be able to sue , say , Fox News , over their coverage of issue X , and let a jury decide if Fox reporting is libel or slander against the truth behind issue X.I do not know what ramifications extending the definitions of libel and slander to concepts/ideas/theories would have ( not a laywer ) , but there has to be something we can do to reign in reporting when it is blatantly false beyond all measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Banning websites which post right wing rumors"I don't think that is the right approach.
Rather, I'd like to see libel and slander laws broadened to include things like scientific theories, and history itself.
Big, well funded news agencies (or "think tanks) on the left and right are not held accountable for anything they say.The only accounting is if another news agency with as much viewers challenges the assertions by the other news agency.
But by that time, the damage is done, and often the viewers of one news agency are not the audience for the other.The only way that we can start getting more truth in reporting, and accurate pictures of reality on complex issues, is to hold organizations accountable.
I think anyone, a citizen, the government, a scientist, etc.., should be able to sue, say, Fox News, over their coverage of issue X, and let a jury decide if Fox reporting is libel or slander against the truth behind issue X.I do not know what ramifications extending the definitions of libel and slander to concepts/ideas/theories would have (not a laywer), but there has to be something we can do to reign in reporting when it is blatantly false beyond all measure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772400</id>
	<title>WARNING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a distinct warning to all frothy-mouthed Liberals that love the idea of a "Fairness Doctrine" which was used in the past to remove Communist influences in the media and is trying to be used today to remove Conservative influences on the radio.  BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a distinct warning to all frothy-mouthed Liberals that love the idea of a " Fairness Doctrine " which was used in the past to remove Communist influences in the media and is trying to be used today to remove Conservative influences on the radio .
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a distinct warning to all frothy-mouthed Liberals that love the idea of a "Fairness Doctrine" which was used in the past to remove Communist influences in the media and is trying to be used today to remove Conservative influences on the radio.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773130</id>
	<title>Or they could do full disclosure</title>
	<author>noddyxoi</author>
	<datestamp>1263474000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of adding more noise to conspiracy theorists why not go full disclosure like making available all info on aliens, 9/11, etc ?

Remember the 9/11 pentagon tapes ? why not release it ASAP ? something to hide uhm ?

No need to use FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), just make the stuff available. People want the truth of course ! and while they do not have it with they'll make that into a holy quest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of adding more noise to conspiracy theorists why not go full disclosure like making available all info on aliens , 9/11 , etc ?
Remember the 9/11 pentagon tapes ?
why not release it ASAP ?
something to hide uhm ?
No need to use FOIA ( Freedom of Information Act ) , just make the stuff available .
People want the truth of course !
and while they do not have it with they 'll make that into a holy quest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of adding more noise to conspiracy theorists why not go full disclosure like making available all info on aliens, 9/11, etc ?
Remember the 9/11 pentagon tapes ?
why not release it ASAP ?
something to hide uhm ?
No need to use FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), just make the stuff available.
People want the truth of course !
and while they do not have it with they'll make that into a holy quest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775306</id>
	<title>Why Fear Bush</title>
	<author>Lawrence\_Bird</author>
	<datestamp>1263490560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When there is Obama et al?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When there is Obama et al ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When there is Obama et al?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778082</id>
	<title>Re:One simple question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263566340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he was a professor when he wrote this, then yes, the question is valid:  State universities get taxpayer funding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he was a professor when he wrote this , then yes , the question is valid : State universities get taxpayer funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he was a professor when he wrote this, then yes, the question is valid:  State universities get taxpayer funding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775786</id>
	<title>Insidious flowchart</title>
	<author>jgoemat</author>
	<datestamp>1263496320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The flowchart has deplorable tactics such as telling people to cite their sources and disclose their connection to the Air Force if they decide to respond to an online post about the Air Force.  If only the people that really assassinated JFK would have had this flow chart to go by...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The flowchart has deplorable tactics such as telling people to cite their sources and disclose their connection to the Air Force if they decide to respond to an online post about the Air Force .
If only the people that really assassinated JFK would have had this flow chart to go by.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flowchart has deplorable tactics such as telling people to cite their sources and disclose their connection to the Air Force if they decide to respond to an online post about the Air Force.
If only the people that really assassinated JFK would have had this flow chart to go by...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772490</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1263471060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I disagree, but it's not as radical of a paper as it's being made out to be.</p></div><p>I find the very notion that an individual who finds thought dangerous can participate in a democratic government to be just about as radical as it gets.</p><p>People should be encouraged to explore their theories, not prevented from thinking about them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , but it 's not as radical of a paper as it 's being made out to be.I find the very notion that an individual who finds thought dangerous can participate in a democratic government to be just about as radical as it gets.People should be encouraged to explore their theories , not prevented from thinking about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, but it's not as radical of a paper as it's being made out to be.I find the very notion that an individual who finds thought dangerous can participate in a democratic government to be just about as radical as it gets.People should be encouraged to explore their theories, not prevented from thinking about them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773900</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263478500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to change the way you think about sources and bias. "Establishment sources" like the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., are not balanced or objective: they deny critical thought by not raising critical issues in the first place.</p><p>Furthermore, these publications are secondary sources: they are reporting on primary sources from the real world and merely broadcast. So if the presence of an article hints to bias, it is either to what they believe is significant (which this appears to be) or it is to what they do or do not want their audience to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to change the way you think about sources and bias .
" Establishment sources " like the Washington Post , New York Times , Wall Street Journal , etc. , are not balanced or objective : they deny critical thought by not raising critical issues in the first place.Furthermore , these publications are secondary sources : they are reporting on primary sources from the real world and merely broadcast .
So if the presence of an article hints to bias , it is either to what they believe is significant ( which this appears to be ) or it is to what they do or do not want their audience to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to change the way you think about sources and bias.
"Establishment sources" like the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., are not balanced or objective: they deny critical thought by not raising critical issues in the first place.Furthermore, these publications are secondary sources: they are reporting on primary sources from the real world and merely broadcast.
So if the presence of an article hints to bias, it is either to what they believe is significant (which this appears to be) or it is to what they do or do not want their audience to learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772748</id>
	<title>Re:This is my First Amendment Right of Free Speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263472260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:raising hand: I've got one over here!</p><p>Yes, do you also have a bullet gun that shoots actual bullets? Because, I think a gun that only shot pieces of paper with the words of the second amendment written on them wouldn't be very useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: raising hand : I 've got one over here ! Yes , do you also have a bullet gun that shoots actual bullets ?
Because , I think a gun that only shot pieces of paper with the words of the second amendment written on them would n't be very useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> :raising hand: I've got one over here!Yes, do you also have a bullet gun that shoots actual bullets?
Because, I think a gun that only shot pieces of paper with the words of the second amendment written on them wouldn't be very useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772366</id>
	<title>Re:GENIUS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>URL, please.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>URL , please.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>URL, please.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774768</id>
	<title>A sad indictment then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of pro-Obama media, who says nothing about this in spite of the undeniable existence of the written essay.</p><p>Why is it the ones who film a black person with a gun, crop the picture and claim that it's a white racist who are "mainstream" and "reliable"? Or the ones who get a word processed document and claim it to be an army document without performing the least shred of verification?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of pro-Obama media , who says nothing about this in spite of the undeniable existence of the written essay.Why is it the ones who film a black person with a gun , crop the picture and claim that it 's a white racist who are " mainstream " and " reliable " ?
Or the ones who get a word processed document and claim it to be an army document without performing the least shred of verification ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of pro-Obama media, who says nothing about this in spite of the undeniable existence of the written essay.Why is it the ones who film a black person with a gun, crop the picture and claim that it's a white racist who are "mainstream" and "reliable"?
Or the ones who get a word processed document and claim it to be an army document without performing the least shred of verification?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284</id>
	<title>This is my First Amendment Right of Free Speech..</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1263470160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... <b>and this is my Second Amendment Gun.</b></p><p><b>ANY QUESTIONS?</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and this is my Second Amendment Gun.ANY QUESTIONS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and this is my Second Amendment Gun.ANY QUESTIONS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774074</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't have any right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater: the paper explicitly says that conspiracy theories should only come to the government's attention when they are causing public harm.</p><p>P.S.  Godwin' law was inevitable on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't have any right to shout " FIRE " in a crowded theater : the paper explicitly says that conspiracy theories should only come to the government 's attention when they are causing public harm.P.S .
Godwin ' law was inevitable on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't have any right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater: the paper explicitly says that conspiracy theories should only come to the government's attention when they are causing public harm.P.S.
Godwin' law was inevitable on this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772612</id>
	<title>Another Nail in the coffin...</title>
	<author>jerzee55</author>
	<datestamp>1263471600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>    I find this truly disturbing. We have almost lost the free press, due to the demise of many newspapers, the network news has become infotainment, at best, and now we are limiting or undermining freedom of expression. It is a sad commentary that the 'government' and fear mongering special interests keep telling us how they are protecting us by gradually eroding our freedoms. Like ancient Rome, we are rotting from the inside out, and have become a timid, petty and hateful nation where fear and intolerance seem to have won out over discussion, compromise, and compassion. Obviously, reasonable people no longer seem able to agree to disagree, they must discredit those with whom they disagree. Has the nation become so polarized that we can no longer discuss issues, or tolerate minority opinions or questions about how things are run, or who really benefits from changes to our economy and laws? We seem to be so preoccupied hating each other that we fail to notice the government taking away our freedoms and our economic well being while we become a nation of uneducated automatons mindlessly playing with our communication devices saying nothing important to everyone we know. How the mighty have fallen, and how sad to watch today's youth believe they are entitled to everything, and willing to do nothing to achieve it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this truly disturbing .
We have almost lost the free press , due to the demise of many newspapers , the network news has become infotainment , at best , and now we are limiting or undermining freedom of expression .
It is a sad commentary that the 'government ' and fear mongering special interests keep telling us how they are protecting us by gradually eroding our freedoms .
Like ancient Rome , we are rotting from the inside out , and have become a timid , petty and hateful nation where fear and intolerance seem to have won out over discussion , compromise , and compassion .
Obviously , reasonable people no longer seem able to agree to disagree , they must discredit those with whom they disagree .
Has the nation become so polarized that we can no longer discuss issues , or tolerate minority opinions or questions about how things are run , or who really benefits from changes to our economy and laws ?
We seem to be so preoccupied hating each other that we fail to notice the government taking away our freedoms and our economic well being while we become a nation of uneducated automatons mindlessly playing with our communication devices saying nothing important to everyone we know .
How the mighty have fallen , and how sad to watch today 's youth believe they are entitled to everything , and willing to do nothing to achieve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    I find this truly disturbing.
We have almost lost the free press, due to the demise of many newspapers, the network news has become infotainment, at best, and now we are limiting or undermining freedom of expression.
It is a sad commentary that the 'government' and fear mongering special interests keep telling us how they are protecting us by gradually eroding our freedoms.
Like ancient Rome, we are rotting from the inside out, and have become a timid, petty and hateful nation where fear and intolerance seem to have won out over discussion, compromise, and compassion.
Obviously, reasonable people no longer seem able to agree to disagree, they must discredit those with whom they disagree.
Has the nation become so polarized that we can no longer discuss issues, or tolerate minority opinions or questions about how things are run, or who really benefits from changes to our economy and laws?
We seem to be so preoccupied hating each other that we fail to notice the government taking away our freedoms and our economic well being while we become a nation of uneducated automatons mindlessly playing with our communication devices saying nothing important to everyone we know.
How the mighty have fallen, and how sad to watch today's youth believe they are entitled to everything, and willing to do nothing to achieve it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775114</id>
	<title>Say what you want...but</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1263488340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If bu$h ran the country this way, all of Obama's admin (short those who were in bu$h's admin) would be dead or in jail by now. All I know is  knowing that they would never be able to get away with it federally, they are trying to bring back the Brady assualt weapons ban up here in Washington (you know, that little slippery slope Clinton tried to toboggan the country down before the LA riots put us all back into perspective?) . For all of you schmucks who voted for Obama, we were right, he is going to try to take our guns away. If they ever succeed, you will come to hate gun owners for not shooting every last one of them! They have no love for your ideals of peace and justice, only for the execution of every last visage of what made America not Mexico.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to freedom of speech ?
If bu $ h ran the country this way , all of Obama 's admin ( short those who were in bu $ h 's admin ) would be dead or in jail by now .
All I know is knowing that they would never be able to get away with it federally , they are trying to bring back the Brady assualt weapons ban up here in Washington ( you know , that little slippery slope Clinton tried to toboggan the country down before the LA riots put us all back into perspective ?
) .
For all of you schmucks who voted for Obama , we were right , he is going to try to take our guns away .
If they ever succeed , you will come to hate gun owners for not shooting every last one of them !
They have no love for your ideals of peace and justice , only for the execution of every last visage of what made America not Mexico .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
If bu$h ran the country this way, all of Obama's admin (short those who were in bu$h's admin) would be dead or in jail by now.
All I know is  knowing that they would never be able to get away with it federally, they are trying to bring back the Brady assualt weapons ban up here in Washington (you know, that little slippery slope Clinton tried to toboggan the country down before the LA riots put us all back into perspective?
) .
For all of you schmucks who voted for Obama, we were right, he is going to try to take our guns away.
If they ever succeed, you will come to hate gun owners for not shooting every last one of them!
They have no love for your ideals of peace and justice, only for the execution of every last visage of what made America not Mexico.
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772692</id>
	<title>26 years late, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263472080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long live the Minitrue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long live the Minitrue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long live the Minitrue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</id>
	<title>Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>pspahn</author>
	<datestamp>1263468780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our nation was founded on the concept of dissent, and it is a very important aspect of maintaining a free and civilized society.<br> <br>
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our nation was founded on the concept of dissent , and it is a very important aspect of maintaining a free and civilized society .
However , there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent , and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational .
I am all for these people getting shut down , so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our nation was founded on the concept of dissent, and it is a very important aspect of maintaining a free and civilized society.
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.
I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772386</id>
	<title>Obama Cares</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1263470640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Post anything negative to a Twitter-aware company like Comcast, and they connect you with somebody from corporate who will set right whatever you're complaining about. What's the difference between that and the Air Force wanting to debate people spreading inaccurate information about them?</p><p>If you allow comments on your blog... that's something who disagree with you can use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Post anything negative to a Twitter-aware company like Comcast , and they connect you with somebody from corporate who will set right whatever you 're complaining about .
What 's the difference between that and the Air Force wanting to debate people spreading inaccurate information about them ? If you allow comments on your blog... that 's something who disagree with you can use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Post anything negative to a Twitter-aware company like Comcast, and they connect you with somebody from corporate who will set right whatever you're complaining about.
What's the difference between that and the Air Force wanting to debate people spreading inaccurate information about them?If you allow comments on your blog... that's something who disagree with you can use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774664</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to quote the part about creating paranoia in anti-global-warming groups on order to frustrate and demobilize them.</p><p>Hence, chew on a shotgun pipe you evil fucker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to quote the part about creating paranoia in anti-global-warming groups on order to frustrate and demobilize them.Hence , chew on a shotgun pipe you evil fucker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to quote the part about creating paranoia in anti-global-warming groups on order to frustrate and demobilize them.Hence, chew on a shotgun pipe you evil fucker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773186</id>
	<title>Re:which</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1263474420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which online groups? Sarah Palin's Facebook followers? better off going to the circus.</i></p><p>No, Facebook followers possess the intellect of a gnat. The groups they plan on going after are ones like this. They (statists) *fear* free thinking citizens. Especially the intelligent ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which online groups ?
Sarah Palin 's Facebook followers ?
better off going to the circus.No , Facebook followers possess the intellect of a gnat .
The groups they plan on going after are ones like this .
They ( statists ) * fear * free thinking citizens .
Especially the intelligent ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which online groups?
Sarah Palin's Facebook followers?
better off going to the circus.No, Facebook followers possess the intellect of a gnat.
The groups they plan on going after are ones like this.
They (statists) *fear* free thinking citizens.
Especially the intelligent ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772040</id>
	<title>GENIUS!</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263468960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What better way to prove that there isn't a conspiracy<br><i>THAN TO TRY AND STOP PEOPLE FROM SPREADING IT</i>.</p><p>This would have been a good article to write one of my 5 or 6 paragraph conspiracy theories that I whip up out of thin air, but I already did one of those today, and my brain hurts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What better way to prove that there is n't a conspiracyTHAN TO TRY AND STOP PEOPLE FROM SPREADING IT.This would have been a good article to write one of my 5 or 6 paragraph conspiracy theories that I whip up out of thin air , but I already did one of those today , and my brain hurts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What better way to prove that there isn't a conspiracyTHAN TO TRY AND STOP PEOPLE FROM SPREADING IT.This would have been a good article to write one of my 5 or 6 paragraph conspiracy theories that I whip up out of thin air, but I already did one of those today, and my brain hurts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30783494</id>
	<title>/b/</title>
	<author>nazsco</author>
	<datestamp>1263548340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/386/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/386/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>I'm pretty confident that 4chan alone will deplet their budget, so why care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/386/ [ xkcd.com ] I 'm pretty confident that 4chan alone will deplet their budget , so why care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]I'm pretty confident that 4chan alone will deplet their budget, so why care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771956</id>
	<title>Why fear terrorists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why fear Middle Eastern terrorists, when there are home-grown Americans so eager to utterly destroy freedom of expression...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why fear Middle Eastern terrorists , when there are home-grown Americans so eager to utterly destroy freedom of expression.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why fear Middle Eastern terrorists, when there are home-grown Americans so eager to utterly destroy freedom of expression...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773204</id>
	<title>Government-Trolls!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263474540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't joining and posting at a group whose opinion generally differs from yours considered trolling? So what they're proposing is official governmental trolls?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't joining and posting at a group whose opinion generally differs from yours considered trolling ?
So what they 're proposing is official governmental trolls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't joining and posting at a group whose opinion generally differs from yours considered trolling?
So what they're proposing is official governmental trolls?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775412</id>
	<title>The difference is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263491580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that candidate Obama *hinted* or *promised* to do something about each of the geeky items on your agenda (as to Anthropogenic Global Warming, inform yourself as to how that "science" was conducted -- and then look up USSR's great Trofim Lysenko). The EFF was actually expecting some help from him on illegal wiretapping, net neutrality, balancing copyright law, and declassifying the "global DMCA" aka ACTA currently in the works.</p><p>Boy, were they disappointed! What we got was RIAA's favorite lawyers for 5 top posts in DoJ, stronger state secrets claims on wiretapping than Bush's DoJ ever made, total stonewalling of ACTA (copyright treaties is a matter of national security, don'tcha know), etc.</p><p>Now I prefer a candidate who does not lie to get my vote and then gives me the finger to one who honestly states positions I don't agree with -- but that's just me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that candidate Obama * hinted * or * promised * to do something about each of the geeky items on your agenda ( as to Anthropogenic Global Warming , inform yourself as to how that " science " was conducted -- and then look up USSR 's great Trofim Lysenko ) .
The EFF was actually expecting some help from him on illegal wiretapping , net neutrality , balancing copyright law , and declassifying the " global DMCA " aka ACTA currently in the works.Boy , were they disappointed !
What we got was RIAA 's favorite lawyers for 5 top posts in DoJ , stronger state secrets claims on wiretapping than Bush 's DoJ ever made , total stonewalling of ACTA ( copyright treaties is a matter of national security , don'tcha know ) , etc.Now I prefer a candidate who does not lie to get my vote and then gives me the finger to one who honestly states positions I do n't agree with -- but that 's just me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that candidate Obama *hinted* or *promised* to do something about each of the geeky items on your agenda (as to Anthropogenic Global Warming, inform yourself as to how that "science" was conducted -- and then look up USSR's great Trofim Lysenko).
The EFF was actually expecting some help from him on illegal wiretapping, net neutrality, balancing copyright law, and declassifying the "global DMCA" aka ACTA currently in the works.Boy, were they disappointed!
What we got was RIAA's favorite lawyers for 5 top posts in DoJ, stronger state secrets claims on wiretapping than Bush's DoJ ever made, total stonewalling of ACTA (copyright treaties is a matter of national security, don'tcha know), etc.Now I prefer a candidate who does not lie to get my vote and then gives me the finger to one who honestly states positions I don't agree with -- but that's just me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772050</id>
	<title>Hope and Change --</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1263469020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-- More of the Same, AND EVEN WORSE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-- More of the Same , AND EVEN WORSE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-- More of the Same, AND EVEN WORSE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772486</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263471000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.</p></div><p>You're absolutely right. If the Republicans win the next election, I hope they vote to silence irresponsible dissenters who say things like:</p><ul>
  <li>Global Climate Change is real.</li><li>Intellectual Property is imaginary.</li><li>Free Software is good for America.</li><li>Pot should be legalized.</li><li>Gay marriage should be legalized.</li><li>Health care reform is necessary.</li><li>Networks should be neutral.</li><li>Abortion should remain legal.</li><li>Monsanto should be limited.</li></ul><p>Any time you wish your buddies had a power, imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent , and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.You 're absolutely right .
If the Republicans win the next election , I hope they vote to silence irresponsible dissenters who say things like : Global Climate Change is real.Intellectual Property is imaginary.Free Software is good for America.Pot should be legalized.Gay marriage should be legalized.Health care reform is necessary.Networks should be neutral.Abortion should remain legal.Monsanto should be limited.Any time you wish your buddies had a power , imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.You're absolutely right.
If the Republicans win the next election, I hope they vote to silence irresponsible dissenters who say things like:
  Global Climate Change is real.Intellectual Property is imaginary.Free Software is good for America.Pot should be legalized.Gay marriage should be legalized.Health care reform is necessary.Networks should be neutral.Abortion should remain legal.Monsanto should be limited.Any time you wish your buddies had a power, imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773408</id>
	<title>yea right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263475740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But when some security firm no one ever heard of "publishes" a report blaming the Chinese goverment for Google Corps crappy security you all eat it up. I say "publish" because no one seems to actually have a copy of it. Sure, now you're all outraged but next time the government releases some scary press release about China or muslims you guys will just eat up anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But when some security firm no one ever heard of " publishes " a report blaming the Chinese goverment for Google Corps crappy security you all eat it up .
I say " publish " because no one seems to actually have a copy of it .
Sure , now you 're all outraged but next time the government releases some scary press release about China or muslims you guys will just eat up anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when some security firm no one ever heard of "publishes" a report blaming the Chinese goverment for Google Corps crappy security you all eat it up.
I say "publish" because no one seems to actually have a copy of it.
Sure, now you're all outraged but next time the government releases some scary press release about China or muslims you guys will just eat up anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773034</id>
	<title>Conspiracy theories are actually bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263473640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my mind, this paper is dealing with the key problem in the world today:  "crippled epistemologies".</p><p>Take some fact that you know is definitely true.  Now *how* do you know it's true?  This is really, really important.  If there's a pre-election debate, are you going to believe the one guy because he's a grizzled war vet?  Or the other guy, cause he's so eloquent?  If you think yes to either those, you need a history lesson.</p><p>Now look, the single greatest advance of the Enlightenment was in epistemology-- ie. how you know what's true and what's not.  Before the 18th century, arguments would typically be settled by saying "I know it's true because I was told so by someone I trust, or because someone told me God (or Aristotle) said so."  After the Enlightenment, some people were demanding actual, observable, repeatable *evidence* as a precursor for belief.  Of course, many ideas that seemed to have a great deal of evidence for them (e.g., earth is the center of the universe, or electricity is a kind of liquid) turned out to be wrong.  But how was it figured out that they were wrong?</p><p>Nobody's trying to censor free speech.  Nor should they.  But the question this article is dealing with is how should government respond to widely held beliefs that have substantial weight of evidence against them.  These "conspiracy theories" are powerful-- people act on them.  Trying traveling to a Muslim country and asking about 9/11.  I have, and it's impossible to argue when the weight of evidence is rejected in favor of "someone I trust told me so"  or worse-- "someone I hate said so, so that must be a lie".  This is a crippled epistemology.</p><p>For me this truly hit home when I was in Malaysia in 2005 and found myself defending the Christian church groups who where doing so much great work to help out those hit by the Tsunami.  The general consensus among those I spoke to was that they were just there to force conversions; they were forcing Muslims to enter Churches to get water or food.  (In case you didn't know, entering a Church is forbidden ( http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/111832 ) by some in Islam.</p><p>So to those of you screaming about free speech and how it's the evil government come to steal your rights, I ask, how should we deal with ideas like these?  Ignore them, and hope people wise-up?  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to work.  Then argue against them, just letting people know the facts?  Just look at all the 9/11 conspirasists here, or the seemingly never ending evolution vs. creationism arguments.</p><p>Consider also that this isn't just about the moon landing or 9/11-was-an-inside-job.  This is about the war on terror.  Remember the hearts-and-minds?  As false information spreads through the Muslim world, such as holocaust-denial, or the unleavened evils of Christianity, it creates people who truly hate America and the western world.  The best and most powerful weapon we have against terror in the long term is helping people not be swindled by incorrect beliefs.</p><p>So I truly think that we *desperately need more such research* into why people hold beliefs that contradict evidence, and how we can change their minds.  This paper is an excellent example of just the kind of research we need.</p><p>Now consider that if large numbers of people are stuck with their "crippled epistemologies" -- then what happens to the world?  No one side will be able to convince the others of their beliefs, and the only way to settle the argument will be with violence or long stretches of time.  We, the whole damn world, really, really need a way to figure out what's right and what's wrong, what's true and what's not and come to some agreement without killing each other.  This is essentially the same argument that Sam Harris makes in his books.  Without a healthy epistemology (Harris likes Rationalism, which is a good choice in my opinion), we're going to have very rough times ahead.  And Sunstein and Vermeule's paper is a great step in figuring out how we can get there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my mind , this paper is dealing with the key problem in the world today : " crippled epistemologies " .Take some fact that you know is definitely true .
Now * how * do you know it 's true ?
This is really , really important .
If there 's a pre-election debate , are you going to believe the one guy because he 's a grizzled war vet ?
Or the other guy , cause he 's so eloquent ?
If you think yes to either those , you need a history lesson.Now look , the single greatest advance of the Enlightenment was in epistemology-- ie .
how you know what 's true and what 's not .
Before the 18th century , arguments would typically be settled by saying " I know it 's true because I was told so by someone I trust , or because someone told me God ( or Aristotle ) said so .
" After the Enlightenment , some people were demanding actual , observable , repeatable * evidence * as a precursor for belief .
Of course , many ideas that seemed to have a great deal of evidence for them ( e.g. , earth is the center of the universe , or electricity is a kind of liquid ) turned out to be wrong .
But how was it figured out that they were wrong ? Nobody 's trying to censor free speech .
Nor should they .
But the question this article is dealing with is how should government respond to widely held beliefs that have substantial weight of evidence against them .
These " conspiracy theories " are powerful-- people act on them .
Trying traveling to a Muslim country and asking about 9/11 .
I have , and it 's impossible to argue when the weight of evidence is rejected in favor of " someone I trust told me so " or worse-- " someone I hate said so , so that must be a lie " .
This is a crippled epistemology.For me this truly hit home when I was in Malaysia in 2005 and found myself defending the Christian church groups who where doing so much great work to help out those hit by the Tsunami .
The general consensus among those I spoke to was that they were just there to force conversions ; they were forcing Muslims to enter Churches to get water or food .
( In case you did n't know , entering a Church is forbidden ( http : //www.islamqa.com/en/ref/111832 ) by some in Islam.So to those of you screaming about free speech and how it 's the evil government come to steal your rights , I ask , how should we deal with ideas like these ?
Ignore them , and hope people wise-up ?
Unfortunately , that does n't seem to work .
Then argue against them , just letting people know the facts ?
Just look at all the 9/11 conspirasists here , or the seemingly never ending evolution vs. creationism arguments.Consider also that this is n't just about the moon landing or 9/11-was-an-inside-job .
This is about the war on terror .
Remember the hearts-and-minds ?
As false information spreads through the Muslim world , such as holocaust-denial , or the unleavened evils of Christianity , it creates people who truly hate America and the western world .
The best and most powerful weapon we have against terror in the long term is helping people not be swindled by incorrect beliefs.So I truly think that we * desperately need more such research * into why people hold beliefs that contradict evidence , and how we can change their minds .
This paper is an excellent example of just the kind of research we need.Now consider that if large numbers of people are stuck with their " crippled epistemologies " -- then what happens to the world ?
No one side will be able to convince the others of their beliefs , and the only way to settle the argument will be with violence or long stretches of time .
We , the whole damn world , really , really need a way to figure out what 's right and what 's wrong , what 's true and what 's not and come to some agreement without killing each other .
This is essentially the same argument that Sam Harris makes in his books .
Without a healthy epistemology ( Harris likes Rationalism , which is a good choice in my opinion ) , we 're going to have very rough times ahead .
And Sunstein and Vermeule 's paper is a great step in figuring out how we can get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my mind, this paper is dealing with the key problem in the world today:  "crippled epistemologies".Take some fact that you know is definitely true.
Now *how* do you know it's true?
This is really, really important.
If there's a pre-election debate, are you going to believe the one guy because he's a grizzled war vet?
Or the other guy, cause he's so eloquent?
If you think yes to either those, you need a history lesson.Now look, the single greatest advance of the Enlightenment was in epistemology-- ie.
how you know what's true and what's not.
Before the 18th century, arguments would typically be settled by saying "I know it's true because I was told so by someone I trust, or because someone told me God (or Aristotle) said so.
"  After the Enlightenment, some people were demanding actual, observable, repeatable *evidence* as a precursor for belief.
Of course, many ideas that seemed to have a great deal of evidence for them (e.g., earth is the center of the universe, or electricity is a kind of liquid) turned out to be wrong.
But how was it figured out that they were wrong?Nobody's trying to censor free speech.
Nor should they.
But the question this article is dealing with is how should government respond to widely held beliefs that have substantial weight of evidence against them.
These "conspiracy theories" are powerful-- people act on them.
Trying traveling to a Muslim country and asking about 9/11.
I have, and it's impossible to argue when the weight of evidence is rejected in favor of "someone I trust told me so"  or worse-- "someone I hate said so, so that must be a lie".
This is a crippled epistemology.For me this truly hit home when I was in Malaysia in 2005 and found myself defending the Christian church groups who where doing so much great work to help out those hit by the Tsunami.
The general consensus among those I spoke to was that they were just there to force conversions; they were forcing Muslims to enter Churches to get water or food.
(In case you didn't know, entering a Church is forbidden ( http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/111832 ) by some in Islam.So to those of you screaming about free speech and how it's the evil government come to steal your rights, I ask, how should we deal with ideas like these?
Ignore them, and hope people wise-up?
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to work.
Then argue against them, just letting people know the facts?
Just look at all the 9/11 conspirasists here, or the seemingly never ending evolution vs. creationism arguments.Consider also that this isn't just about the moon landing or 9/11-was-an-inside-job.
This is about the war on terror.
Remember the hearts-and-minds?
As false information spreads through the Muslim world, such as holocaust-denial, or the unleavened evils of Christianity, it creates people who truly hate America and the western world.
The best and most powerful weapon we have against terror in the long term is helping people not be swindled by incorrect beliefs.So I truly think that we *desperately need more such research* into why people hold beliefs that contradict evidence, and how we can change their minds.
This paper is an excellent example of just the kind of research we need.Now consider that if large numbers of people are stuck with their "crippled epistemologies" -- then what happens to the world?
No one side will be able to convince the others of their beliefs, and the only way to settle the argument will be with violence or long stretches of time.
We, the whole damn world, really, really need a way to figure out what's right and what's wrong, what's true and what's not and come to some agreement without killing each other.
This is essentially the same argument that Sam Harris makes in his books.
Without a healthy epistemology (Harris likes Rationalism, which is a good choice in my opinion), we're going to have very rough times ahead.
And Sunstein and Vermeule's paper is a great step in figuring out how we can get there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774444</id>
	<title>Re:Free means free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can they eff up ther anti-vaxxers, too?</p></div><p>You mean to tell em that Vax mainframes were all a hoax?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can they eff up ther anti-vaxxers , too ? You mean to tell em that Vax mainframes were all a hoax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can they eff up ther anti-vaxxers, too?You mean to tell em that Vax mainframes were all a hoax?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773508</id>
	<title>Are conspiracy theories really true?</title>
	<author>REALMAN</author>
	<datestamp>1263476220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If these theories are so nutball and baseless then why does the Government need to spend so much time and effort to infiltrate and undermine/marginalize them??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these theories are so nutball and baseless then why does the Government need to spend so much time and effort to infiltrate and undermine/marginalize them ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these theories are so nutball and baseless then why does the Government need to spend so much time and effort to infiltrate and undermine/marginalize them?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30777250</id>
	<title>Pah.</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1263558720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This man has obviously never attempted to 'reason' with a troll on the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This man has obviously never attempted to 'reason ' with a troll on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This man has obviously never attempted to 'reason' with a troll on the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773044</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>C10H14N2</author>
	<datestamp>1263473700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Few things have annoyed me as much as when I worked inside a particular three-letter acronym department than watching the public debate about something totally inflammatory while the department was unambiguously in the right by any reasonable standard, but the policy was to not engage in the debate with anyone but Congress. Of course, many members of Congress were fanning the flames for their own political gain without the slightest actual interest in the real (lack of a) problem. This wasn't a matter of vague opinion, either, it was an issue of rigorously documented fact that easily refuted the arguments going on in public.</p><p>Unfortunately, even if we had posted the proof on every major network at prime-time for a month straight, the minds in need of changing would not have changed in the slightest -- largely because the debate wasn't really about the actual topic, but other convenient vested political interests. Besides, the ethical boundaries, not to mention laws, it would be necessary to break in order to reveal the proof were so numerous that, especially in light of the futility of the public argument, the policy of no-comment actually made sense.</p><p>I fear they are about to rediscover that painfully routine circumstance here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Few things have annoyed me as much as when I worked inside a particular three-letter acronym department than watching the public debate about something totally inflammatory while the department was unambiguously in the right by any reasonable standard , but the policy was to not engage in the debate with anyone but Congress .
Of course , many members of Congress were fanning the flames for their own political gain without the slightest actual interest in the real ( lack of a ) problem .
This was n't a matter of vague opinion , either , it was an issue of rigorously documented fact that easily refuted the arguments going on in public.Unfortunately , even if we had posted the proof on every major network at prime-time for a month straight , the minds in need of changing would not have changed in the slightest -- largely because the debate was n't really about the actual topic , but other convenient vested political interests .
Besides , the ethical boundaries , not to mention laws , it would be necessary to break in order to reveal the proof were so numerous that , especially in light of the futility of the public argument , the policy of no-comment actually made sense.I fear they are about to rediscover that painfully routine circumstance here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few things have annoyed me as much as when I worked inside a particular three-letter acronym department than watching the public debate about something totally inflammatory while the department was unambiguously in the right by any reasonable standard, but the policy was to not engage in the debate with anyone but Congress.
Of course, many members of Congress were fanning the flames for their own political gain without the slightest actual interest in the real (lack of a) problem.
This wasn't a matter of vague opinion, either, it was an issue of rigorously documented fact that easily refuted the arguments going on in public.Unfortunately, even if we had posted the proof on every major network at prime-time for a month straight, the minds in need of changing would not have changed in the slightest -- largely because the debate wasn't really about the actual topic, but other convenient vested political interests.
Besides, the ethical boundaries, not to mention laws, it would be necessary to break in order to reveal the proof were so numerous that, especially in light of the futility of the public argument, the policy of no-comment actually made sense.I fear they are about to rediscover that painfully routine circumstance here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774974</id>
	<title>Re:After infiltrating several on-line forums ....</title>
	<author>kiloechonovember</author>
	<datestamp>1263487140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the Obama administration has become very concerned with the situation in Azeroth and plan to spend 10 billion in on-line gold to help the cause.</p></div><p>Great, more inflation!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Obama administration has become very concerned with the situation in Azeroth and plan to spend 10 billion in on-line gold to help the cause.Great , more inflation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Obama administration has become very concerned with the situation in Azeroth and plan to spend 10 billion in on-line gold to help the cause.Great, more inflation!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772266</id>
	<title>Good but not enough</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263470040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force.'"</p></div><p>Dear government.
Do you want a tip to improve the efficiency of these counter bloggers ? Identify them as "official bloggers" and feed them with true and real information. If your goal is really to fight fake information, this should work like a charm. And despite my sarcastic tone, I really think it would work. Give someone (a journalist or an administrator, or anyone really) an insight on public files and a freedom of speech so that s/he can use informal speech to rant on internet and you will have your counter-blogging force. Lies and disguise rarely serve the cause of truth, don't believe people who try to sell such solutions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers ' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force .
' " Dear government .
Do you want a tip to improve the efficiency of these counter bloggers ?
Identify them as " official bloggers " and feed them with true and real information .
If your goal is really to fight fake information , this should work like a charm .
And despite my sarcastic tone , I really think it would work .
Give someone ( a journalist or an administrator , or anyone really ) an insight on public files and a freedom of speech so that s/he can use informal speech to rant on internet and you will have your counter-blogging force .
Lies and disguise rarely serve the cause of truth , do n't believe people who try to sell such solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force.
'"Dear government.
Do you want a tip to improve the efficiency of these counter bloggers ?
Identify them as "official bloggers" and feed them with true and real information.
If your goal is really to fight fake information, this should work like a charm.
And despite my sarcastic tone, I really think it would work.
Give someone (a journalist or an administrator, or anyone really) an insight on public files and a freedom of speech so that s/he can use informal speech to rant on internet and you will have your counter-blogging force.
Lies and disguise rarely serve the cause of truth, don't believe people who try to sell such solutions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773068</id>
	<title>Re:This is my First Amendment Right of Free Speech</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1263473760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, what the fuck are you going to do with yuor gun against a tank and 50 FBI agents?</p><p>Seriously, do you think you gun can protect you from the government? Don't be stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , what the fuck are you going to do with yuor gun against a tank and 50 FBI agents ? Seriously , do you think you gun can protect you from the government ?
Do n't be stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, what the fuck are you going to do with yuor gun against a tank and 50 FBI agents?Seriously, do you think you gun can protect you from the government?
Don't be stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778174</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1263567000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem comes from the definition of HARM.  Someone like Locke equates "HARM" to broken legs, trampled bodies and stab wounds.  The enemies of free speech in contemporary society (most of the power elite in government and academia) consider it "harm" when you hurt someone's feelings or question official government propaganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem comes from the definition of HARM .
Someone like Locke equates " HARM " to broken legs , trampled bodies and stab wounds .
The enemies of free speech in contemporary society ( most of the power elite in government and academia ) consider it " harm " when you hurt someone 's feelings or question official government propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem comes from the definition of HARM.
Someone like Locke equates "HARM" to broken legs, trampled bodies and stab wounds.
The enemies of free speech in contemporary society (most of the power elite in government and academia) consider it "harm" when you hurt someone's feelings or question official government propaganda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773916</id>
	<title>Suprised?</title>
	<author>ThurstonMoore</author>
	<datestamp>1263478680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is anyone surprised by this?  I just assumed it already happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is anyone surprised by this ?
I just assumed it already happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is anyone surprised by this?
I just assumed it already happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</id>
	<title>Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not link in HuffingtonPost, FreeRepublic, and MichaelMoore.com while you're at it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>For those who care about the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1084585" title="ssrn.com">actual paper</a> [ssrn.com] rather than the right-wing spin of it:</p><p>--------</p><p>Abstract:<br>Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. <b>Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light</b>.<br>------</p><p>Note how the Slashdot header linked to COINTELPRO, to imply that that's what's being talked about?  Even in the *scenario* where infiltration is discussed, the paper explicitly states, "By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions."  The paper is about how (or whether to) dispel conspiracy theories to prevent them from spreading, not to prosecute the individuals who promote them.  Cognitive infiltration is discussed (again, in purely theoretical terms) in not just a covert manner, but also an overt manner.  A lot (although not all) of the paper also is about overseas actions against muslim radical organizations, too, giving examples of tactics we're already employing to dispel conspiracy theories that help fuel terrorist organizations.  Anyone who doesn't realize that our government actively employs propaganda even against non-conspiracy-theories isn't paying attention.</p><p>Now, all of that said, Sunstein does come across in the end as as supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can "create or fuel violence" by "rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cogitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks."  Which form of cognitive infiltration discussed -- covert or overt -- is not mentioned, nor is whether this is a reference to domestic, international, or both kinds of conspiracy theories.</p><p>I disagree, but it's not as radical of a paper as it's being made out to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not link in HuffingtonPost , FreeRepublic , and MichaelMoore.com while you 're at it .
; ) For those who care about the actual paper [ ssrn.com ] rather than the right-wing spin of it : --------Abstract : Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories ; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event .
A recent example is the belief , widespread in some parts of the world , that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda , but by Israel or the United States .
Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks , including risks of violence , and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law .
The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper ; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined .
Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders , operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences .
A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality .
Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories ; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy .
Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology , in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories , the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups .
Various policy dilemmas , such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them , are explored in this light.------Note how the Slashdot header linked to COINTELPRO , to imply that that 's what 's being talked about ?
Even in the * scenario * where infiltration is discussed , the paper explicitly states , " By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information , possibly for use in future prosecutions .
" The paper is about how ( or whether to ) dispel conspiracy theories to prevent them from spreading , not to prosecute the individuals who promote them .
Cognitive infiltration is discussed ( again , in purely theoretical terms ) in not just a covert manner , but also an overt manner .
A lot ( although not all ) of the paper also is about overseas actions against muslim radical organizations , too , giving examples of tactics we 're already employing to dispel conspiracy theories that help fuel terrorist organizations .
Anyone who does n't realize that our government actively employs propaganda even against non-conspiracy-theories is n't paying attention.Now , all of that said , Sunstein does come across in the end as as supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can " create or fuel violence " by " rebutting more rather than fewer theories , by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals , and by cogitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks .
" Which form of cognitive infiltration discussed -- covert or overt -- is not mentioned , nor is whether this is a reference to domestic , international , or both kinds of conspiracy theories.I disagree , but it 's not as radical of a paper as it 's being made out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not link in HuffingtonPost, FreeRepublic, and MichaelMoore.com while you're at it.
;)For those who care about the actual paper [ssrn.com] rather than the right-wing spin of it:--------Abstract:Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event.
A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States.
Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law.
The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined.
Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences.
A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality.
Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy.
Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.
Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.------Note how the Slashdot header linked to COINTELPRO, to imply that that's what's being talked about?
Even in the *scenario* where infiltration is discussed, the paper explicitly states, "By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions.
"  The paper is about how (or whether to) dispel conspiracy theories to prevent them from spreading, not to prosecute the individuals who promote them.
Cognitive infiltration is discussed (again, in purely theoretical terms) in not just a covert manner, but also an overt manner.
A lot (although not all) of the paper also is about overseas actions against muslim radical organizations, too, giving examples of tactics we're already employing to dispel conspiracy theories that help fuel terrorist organizations.
Anyone who doesn't realize that our government actively employs propaganda even against non-conspiracy-theories isn't paying attention.Now, all of that said, Sunstein does come across in the end as as supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can "create or fuel violence" by "rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cogitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.
"  Which form of cognitive infiltration discussed -- covert or overt -- is not mentioned, nor is whether this is a reference to domestic, international, or both kinds of conspiracy theories.I disagree, but it's not as radical of a paper as it's being made out to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771998</id>
	<title>What, no "propaganda" tag?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, no "propaganda" tag?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , no " propaganda " tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, no "propaganda" tag?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773008</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant!</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263473520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people.  At least, I can't.</p></div><p>I don't know if you learned it from your Mother or what the deal is, but you're doing it wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but you ca n't make an omelette without killing a few people .
At least , I ca n't.I do n't know if you learned it from your Mother or what the deal is , but you 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people.
At least, I can't.I don't know if you learned it from your Mother or what the deal is, but you're doing it wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773570</id>
	<title>What's up with the fp troll?</title>
	<author>Caffinated</author>
	<datestamp>1263476580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's up with the front page troll post? Worldnutdaily and Rawstory as sources? Really?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's up with the front page troll post ?
Worldnutdaily and Rawstory as sources ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's up with the front page troll post?
Worldnutdaily and Rawstory as sources?
Really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772112</id>
	<title>Counterproductive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along, and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along , and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along, and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator :/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774740</id>
	<title>Infiltration = Validation</title>
	<author>phoomp</author>
	<datestamp>1263485160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happens when you conspire to infiltrate groups with conspiracy theories?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when you conspire to infiltrate groups with conspiracy theories ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when you conspire to infiltrate groups with conspiracy theories?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772238</id>
	<title>Proof the standard media is worthless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me this reads like a complete admission that government has little or nothing to fear from standard media, which is something I've felt for a long time.  And they think I should be giving them my money or that Google should be paying them for their worthless prattling of the establishment line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me this reads like a complete admission that government has little or nothing to fear from standard media , which is something I 've felt for a long time .
And they think I should be giving them my money or that Google should be paying them for their worthless prattling of the establishment line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me this reads like a complete admission that government has little or nothing to fear from standard media, which is something I've felt for a long time.
And they think I should be giving them my money or that Google should be paying them for their worthless prattling of the establishment line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772468</id>
	<title>I fully expect ...</title>
	<author>adipocere</author>
	<datestamp>1263470940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... to see these HEY THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY bots auto-responding to anything mentioned about $conspiracy, amongst the webcam bots, in the handful of remaining Yahoo! Chat rooms which remain until Yahoo! gives up and shuts down chat altogether.  See also the Israeli "MegaPhone" application.</p><p>Automated comments, emails, robodialers, blog posts, and messages: making humans more distrustful of human communication year by year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to see these HEY THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY bots auto-responding to anything mentioned about $ conspiracy , amongst the webcam bots , in the handful of remaining Yahoo !
Chat rooms which remain until Yahoo !
gives up and shuts down chat altogether .
See also the Israeli " MegaPhone " application.Automated comments , emails , robodialers , blog posts , and messages : making humans more distrustful of human communication year by year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to see these HEY THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY bots auto-responding to anything mentioned about $conspiracy, amongst the webcam bots, in the handful of remaining Yahoo!
Chat rooms which remain until Yahoo!
gives up and shuts down chat altogether.
See also the Israeli "MegaPhone" application.Automated comments, emails, robodialers, blog posts, and messages: making humans more distrustful of human communication year by year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774472</id>
	<title>did the submitter RTFA?</title>
	<author>Bazzargh</author>
	<datestamp>1263483000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories'[first link]... Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.[second link]</em></p><p>What's interesting about these two bits of the summary is that both are based on the <em>same</em> article by Sunstein, summarized differently by different wingnut websites. I have to conclude that the submitter didn't read the article. At all. Hey, I can quote out of context as well as the next guy:</p><p><em>government may do best to ignore conspiracy theories and theorists even if it justifiably fears that they will have<br>harmful effects, because government action may make things worse.</em></p><p>Does that quote misrepresent the article? Yes, it does. But actually, less than the summary does, since Sunstein actually advocates 'ignore' in some circumstances. However - bans? If you read the article you'd see that banning is an option he explicitly rejects!! (clue: its option 1 of 5, where only 3, 4, 5 make the cut; its the only time the word 'ban' appears in the paper...). There might be something interesting to say about this article. But the stuff you've linked to in the summary, and the summary itself? That's just so far off target, its not even a decent starting point for a conversation.</p><p>Can we get back to the news for nerds, where someone claims Knuth advocates using O(n^2) algorithms, just because he mentions them (rolls eyes)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration ' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories ' [ first link ] ... Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors ' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine .
[ second link ] What 's interesting about these two bits of the summary is that both are based on the same article by Sunstein , summarized differently by different wingnut websites .
I have to conclude that the submitter did n't read the article .
At all .
Hey , I can quote out of context as well as the next guy : government may do best to ignore conspiracy theories and theorists even if it justifiably fears that they will haveharmful effects , because government action may make things worse.Does that quote misrepresent the article ?
Yes , it does .
But actually , less than the summary does , since Sunstein actually advocates 'ignore ' in some circumstances .
However - bans ?
If you read the article you 'd see that banning is an option he explicitly rejects ! !
( clue : its option 1 of 5 , where only 3 , 4 , 5 make the cut ; its the only time the word 'ban ' appears in the paper... ) .
There might be something interesting to say about this article .
But the stuff you 've linked to in the summary , and the summary itself ?
That 's just so far off target , its not even a decent starting point for a conversation.Can we get back to the news for nerds , where someone claims Knuth advocates using O ( n ^ 2 ) algorithms , just because he mentions them ( rolls eyes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories'[first link]... Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.
[second link]What's interesting about these two bits of the summary is that both are based on the same article by Sunstein, summarized differently by different wingnut websites.
I have to conclude that the submitter didn't read the article.
At all.
Hey, I can quote out of context as well as the next guy:government may do best to ignore conspiracy theories and theorists even if it justifiably fears that they will haveharmful effects, because government action may make things worse.Does that quote misrepresent the article?
Yes, it does.
But actually, less than the summary does, since Sunstein actually advocates 'ignore' in some circumstances.
However - bans?
If you read the article you'd see that banning is an option he explicitly rejects!!
(clue: its option 1 of 5, where only 3, 4, 5 make the cut; its the only time the word 'ban' appears in the paper...).
There might be something interesting to say about this article.
But the stuff you've linked to in the summary, and the summary itself?
That's just so far off target, its not even a decent starting point for a conversation.Can we get back to the news for nerds, where someone claims Knuth advocates using O(n^2) algorithms, just because he mentions them (rolls eyes)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773750</id>
	<title>been there done that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263477720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporations have been doing this to sites like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. for years. I'm sure the government won't do any worse damage than they already have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations have been doing this to sites like / .
for years .
I 'm sure the government wo n't do any worse damage than they already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations have been doing this to sites like /.
for years.
I'm sure the government won't do any worse damage than they already have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774310</id>
	<title>So This Is Like Being Infiltrated by Scientologi</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1263481740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since we all know the Government has been infiltrated by Scientology at all levels, it is safe to assume this infiltration of government liars and apologists will be like any Scientology run scam on the people.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Anyone have any insight into Sunsteins relationship with Xenu?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we all know the Government has been infiltrated by Scientology at all levels , it is safe to assume this infiltration of government liars and apologists will be like any Scientology run scam on the people .
        Anyone have any insight into Sunsteins relationship with Xenu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we all know the Government has been infiltrated by Scientology at all levels, it is safe to assume this infiltration of government liars and apologists will be like any Scientology run scam on the people.
        Anyone have any insight into Sunsteins relationship with Xenu?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775326</id>
	<title>Re:This is my First Amendment Right of Free Speech</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1263490740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  Better to take a page out of Swordfish and strap some C-4 and ball bearings to your chest - at least that way you're guaranteed to take some of the fuckers out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Better to take a page out of Swordfish and strap some C-4 and ball bearings to your chest - at least that way you 're guaranteed to take some of the fuckers out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Better to take a page out of Swordfish and strap some C-4 and ball bearings to your chest - at least that way you're guaranteed to take some of the fuckers out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30801236</id>
	<title>Re:There is NOTHING in there suggesting a ban!</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1263723240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The govt CAN speak, just as we can. But the govt MUST be open and honest about it. They can't just log on to a forum as 'janeknowsall' and start spewing info, hiding the fact that they are a govt employee performing a govt duty.  Calling their actions 'infiltration' right off the bat smacks of subversiveness. Our govt ought not be subversive against its own people. The way to combat harmful 'conspiracy theories' is to have the originating information corrected. Do you really think for one moment the govt is about to tell us all it knows about area 51, the JFK assassination, or lights in the sky? If ya want ta stop gossip, just make sure everyone knows everything. If ya gotta hide some things, ya gotta accept the normal outfall. When it comes, look to places like Snopes for the truth! thanks fer lis'nin'  seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>The govt CAN speak , just as we can .
But the govt MUST be open and honest about it .
They ca n't just log on to a forum as 'janeknowsall ' and start spewing info , hiding the fact that they are a govt employee performing a govt duty .
Calling their actions 'infiltration ' right off the bat smacks of subversiveness .
Our govt ought not be subversive against its own people .
The way to combat harmful 'conspiracy theories ' is to have the originating information corrected .
Do you really think for one moment the govt is about to tell us all it knows about area 51 , the JFK assassination , or lights in the sky ?
If ya want ta stop gossip , just make sure everyone knows everything .
If ya got ta hide some things , ya got ta accept the normal outfall .
When it comes , look to places like Snopes for the truth !
thanks fer lis'nin ' seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The govt CAN speak, just as we can.
But the govt MUST be open and honest about it.
They can't just log on to a forum as 'janeknowsall' and start spewing info, hiding the fact that they are a govt employee performing a govt duty.
Calling their actions 'infiltration' right off the bat smacks of subversiveness.
Our govt ought not be subversive against its own people.
The way to combat harmful 'conspiracy theories' is to have the originating information corrected.
Do you really think for one moment the govt is about to tell us all it knows about area 51, the JFK assassination, or lights in the sky?
If ya want ta stop gossip, just make sure everyone knows everything.
If ya gotta hide some things, ya gotta accept the normal outfall.
When it comes, look to places like Snopes for the truth!
thanks fer lis'nin'  seekertom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30788032</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1263579960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying.  A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.</p></div><p>Are you kidding?  It can't even fix slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of a lot of inane things out there , from birthers to truthers to GNAA , but those people are just annoying .
A good moderation system like slashdot 's can fix all of them.Are you kidding ?
It ca n't even fix slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying.
A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.Are you kidding?
It can't even fix slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774426</id>
	<title>Re:Aaron Klein is disingenous.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263482640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be capable of imagining curtailing of fee speech.</p><p>I want you out of public decision making process, clearly you're predisposed to limiting free speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be capable of imagining curtailing of fee speech.I want you out of public decision making process , clearly you 're predisposed to limiting free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be capable of imagining curtailing of fee speech.I want you out of public decision making process, clearly you're predisposed to limiting free speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772478</id>
	<title>Re:This is my First Amendment Right of Free Speech</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1263471000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry sir but I must inform you that you are using an inaccurate information source and I must also ask you to refrain from propagating this incorrect information. There is no second amendment and your interpretation of the first amendment is not correct.</p><p>-Minitruth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry sir but I must inform you that you are using an inaccurate information source and I must also ask you to refrain from propagating this incorrect information .
There is no second amendment and your interpretation of the first amendment is not correct.-Minitruth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry sir but I must inform you that you are using an inaccurate information source and I must also ask you to refrain from propagating this incorrect information.
There is no second amendment and your interpretation of the first amendment is not correct.-Minitruth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30789866</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263652260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying I for a second think most of this conspiracy garbage is real (chemtrails? what a joke), but:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can "create or fuel violence"</p></div><p>Really? You don't think they could just classify every single one as being one that could "create or fuel violence" and be done with it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying I for a second think most of this conspiracy garbage is real ( chemtrails ?
what a joke ) , but : supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can " create or fuel violence " Really ?
You do n't think they could just classify every single one as being one that could " create or fuel violence " and be done with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying I for a second think most of this conspiracy garbage is real (chemtrails?
what a joke), but:supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can "create or fuel violence"Really?
You don't think they could just classify every single one as being one that could "create or fuel violence" and be done with it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772578</id>
	<title>Network Neutrality</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1263471480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone interested in giving these orginizations control over which network providers are being free, open and impartial just chime in now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone interested in giving these orginizations control over which network providers are being free , open and impartial just chime in now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone interested in giving these orginizations control over which network providers are being free, open and impartial just chime in now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30779718</id>
	<title>Ministry of Truth: Boon or Blessing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263575340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See George. See George run. Good George. Oops! See George fuck up. Goodbye, George.</p><p>See Barack. See Barack run. Yes, we can. Good Barack. Change, change, change. Oops!....</p><p>This is getting tiresome, folks..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See George .
See George run .
Good George .
Oops ! See George fuck up .
Goodbye , George.See Barack .
See Barack run .
Yes , we can .
Good Barack .
Change , change , change .
Oops ! ....This is getting tiresome , folks. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See George.
See George run.
Good George.
Oops! See George fuck up.
Goodbye, George.See Barack.
See Barack run.
Yes, we can.
Good Barack.
Change, change, change.
Oops!....This is getting tiresome, folks..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30800826</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1263720420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it HAVE to be extra-ordinarily bad to be bad? I think it is wrong for the govt to be spending time and money in an attempt to squash ideas that would never have popped up in the first place if said govt had been open to the sunshine in the first place! Simple case in point... we had lots of conspiracy theories about little green men from outer space, information about which the govt REFUSED to discuss or even acknowledge. The theories grew because of the way govt behaved. Yet today, lots of respectable folks have come out to say 'yes, there ARE little green men out there!' So, in the end, the theories had merit! If the govt doesn't like people talkin' shite about stuff, they need to be open and honest with us about what's going on. Nothing wrong with their coming out and defending their position with FACTS, but if they had done so in the beginning, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Speaking of right now, consider how OB is handling this big med ins fiasco... how much of it is 'behind closed doors'? WHY behind closed doors? and don't you think this lack of openness will result in MORE conspiracy theories? thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it HAVE to be extra-ordinarily bad to be bad ?
I think it is wrong for the govt to be spending time and money in an attempt to squash ideas that would never have popped up in the first place if said govt had been open to the sunshine in the first place !
Simple case in point... we had lots of conspiracy theories about little green men from outer space , information about which the govt REFUSED to discuss or even acknowledge .
The theories grew because of the way govt behaved .
Yet today , lots of respectable folks have come out to say 'yes , there ARE little green men out there !
' So , in the end , the theories had merit !
If the govt does n't like people talkin ' shite about stuff , they need to be open and honest with us about what 's going on .
Nothing wrong with their coming out and defending their position with FACTS , but if they had done so in the beginning , we would n't be having this discussion right now .
Speaking of right now , consider how OB is handling this big med ins fiasco... how much of it is 'behind closed doors ' ?
WHY behind closed doors ?
and do n't you think this lack of openness will result in MORE conspiracy theories ?
thanks fer lis'nin ' seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it HAVE to be extra-ordinarily bad to be bad?
I think it is wrong for the govt to be spending time and money in an attempt to squash ideas that would never have popped up in the first place if said govt had been open to the sunshine in the first place!
Simple case in point... we had lots of conspiracy theories about little green men from outer space, information about which the govt REFUSED to discuss or even acknowledge.
The theories grew because of the way govt behaved.
Yet today, lots of respectable folks have come out to say 'yes, there ARE little green men out there!
' So, in the end, the theories had merit!
If the govt doesn't like people talkin' shite about stuff, they need to be open and honest with us about what's going on.
Nothing wrong with their coming out and defending their position with FACTS, but if they had done so in the beginning, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Speaking of right now, consider how OB is handling this big med ins fiasco... how much of it is 'behind closed doors'?
WHY behind closed doors?
and don't you think this lack of openness will result in MORE conspiracy theories?
thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772258</id>
	<title>but of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so wait... they're infiltrating internet groups and paying people to spend large amounts of time within them?</p><p>I'll be right back. I have to hand in my resume to the CIA now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so wait... they 're infiltrating internet groups and paying people to spend large amounts of time within them ? I 'll be right back .
I have to hand in my resume to the CIA now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so wait... they're infiltrating internet groups and paying people to spend large amounts of time within them?I'll be right back.
I have to hand in my resume to the CIA now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30828564</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.</p></div><p>You're absolutely right. If the Republicans win the next election, I hope they vote to silence irresponsible dissenters who say things like:</p><ul><li><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</li> <li>Global Climate Change is real.</li><li>Intellectual Property is imaginary.</li><li>Free Software is good for America.</li><li>Pot should be legalized.</li><li>Gay marriage should be legalized.</li><li>Health care reform is necessary.</li><li>Networks should be neutral.</li><li>Abortion should remain legal.</li><li>Monsanto should be limited.</li></ul><p>Any time you wish your buddies had a power, imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.</p></div><p>Pigs are flying and Hell has Frozen over, The DemocRats have Screwed up and Lost<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office. Coakley is a idiot, and Brown out Foxed the Whole White House, including the &ldquo;smartest&rdquo; President (NOT) in history.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Bush is smarter than Obama, think about it, Bush kept the Economy running fairly smooth for 7 3/4 years and Obama comes in and screws it up in LESS Than ONE YEAR, Ya I've heard the &ldquo;Bush is stupid&rdquo; line if that's true, Why did he do So Much BETTER Than Obama at Running the Economy, Country, Had More Money coming into the U.S. Treasury than either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, Check the IRS &amp; U.S. Treasury Documents for yourself (Anytime during Bush's term in office and Clinton's term in office and Bush's 1st Year in office with Obama's 1st year in office &ndash; TOO BE FAIR)</p><p>Also Fun to NOTE: Dems cast blame at each other over Senate campaign, White house Blaming Coakley, A Kennedy Can Not Remember Her First Name is Martha NOT Marsha, Coakley Blaming Obama, and Axelrod etc.  What fun the finger pointing  HA HA HA..   Gee the next Three years, might be fun too, watching Obama twist in the wind, and probably not serve a second term in office Because of His incompetency!  What Fun to Actually see this happen in REAL LIFE!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent , and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.You 're absolutely right .
If the Republicans win the next election , I hope they vote to silence irresponsible dissenters who say things like :     Global Climate Change is real.Intellectual Property is imaginary.Free Software is good for America.Pot should be legalized.Gay marriage should be legalized.Health care reform is necessary.Networks should be neutral.Abortion should remain legal.Monsanto should be limited.Any time you wish your buddies had a power , imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.Pigs are flying and Hell has Frozen over , The DemocRats have Screwed up and Lost ... In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts , Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century , leaving President Barack Obama 's health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office .
Coakley is a idiot , and Brown out Foxed the Whole White House , including the    smartest    President ( NOT ) in history .
    Bush is smarter than Obama , think about it , Bush kept the Economy running fairly smooth for 7 3/4 years and Obama comes in and screws it up in LESS Than ONE YEAR , Ya I 've heard the    Bush is stupid    line if that 's true , Why did he do So Much BETTER Than Obama at Running the Economy , Country , Had More Money coming into the U.S. Treasury than either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama , Check the IRS &amp; U.S. Treasury Documents for yourself ( Anytime during Bush 's term in office and Clinton 's term in office and Bush 's 1st Year in office with Obama 's 1st year in office    TOO BE FAIR ) Also Fun to NOTE : Dems cast blame at each other over Senate campaign , White house Blaming Coakley , A Kennedy Can Not Remember Her First Name is Martha NOT Marsha , Coakley Blaming Obama , and Axelrod etc .
What fun the finger pointing HA HA HA.. Gee the next Three years , might be fun too , watching Obama twist in the wind , and probably not serve a second term in office Because of His incompetency !
What Fun to Actually see this happen in REAL LIFE !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.You're absolutely right.
If the Republicans win the next election, I hope they vote to silence irresponsible dissenters who say things like:
    Global Climate Change is real.Intellectual Property is imaginary.Free Software is good for America.Pot should be legalized.Gay marriage should be legalized.Health care reform is necessary.Networks should be neutral.Abortion should remain legal.Monsanto should be limited.Any time you wish your buddies had a power, imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.Pigs are flying and Hell has Frozen over, The DemocRats have Screwed up and Lost ... In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.
Coakley is a idiot, and Brown out Foxed the Whole White House, including the “smartest” President (NOT) in history.
    Bush is smarter than Obama, think about it, Bush kept the Economy running fairly smooth for 7 3/4 years and Obama comes in and screws it up in LESS Than ONE YEAR, Ya I've heard the “Bush is stupid” line if that's true, Why did he do So Much BETTER Than Obama at Running the Economy, Country, Had More Money coming into the U.S. Treasury than either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, Check the IRS &amp; U.S. Treasury Documents for yourself (Anytime during Bush's term in office and Clinton's term in office and Bush's 1st Year in office with Obama's 1st year in office – TOO BE FAIR)Also Fun to NOTE: Dems cast blame at each other over Senate campaign, White house Blaming Coakley, A Kennedy Can Not Remember Her First Name is Martha NOT Marsha, Coakley Blaming Obama, and Axelrod etc.
What fun the finger pointing  HA HA HA..   Gee the next Three years, might be fun too, watching Obama twist in the wind, and probably not serve a second term in office Because of His incompetency!
What Fun to Actually see this happen in REAL LIFE!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772632</id>
	<title>What constitutes a conspiracy?</title>
	<author>woopate</author>
	<datestamp>1263471660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read the paper yet, as I'm just about the step out the door (I will read it), but the "ban on conspiracy websites" outlined in the linked article concerns me greatly. Conspiracies on the internet can look VERY similar to actual information about malpractice and corruption also found on the internet. The power to "ban" conspiracies would give a simultaneous power to ban leaks of information on corruption, which is a violation of the First Amendment for the EXACT motivations it was put in place to prevent.</p><p>Which is why I really doubt the article's validity, and hopefully reading the paper will confirm my doubts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the paper yet , as I 'm just about the step out the door ( I will read it ) , but the " ban on conspiracy websites " outlined in the linked article concerns me greatly .
Conspiracies on the internet can look VERY similar to actual information about malpractice and corruption also found on the internet .
The power to " ban " conspiracies would give a simultaneous power to ban leaks of information on corruption , which is a violation of the First Amendment for the EXACT motivations it was put in place to prevent.Which is why I really doubt the article 's validity , and hopefully reading the paper will confirm my doubts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the paper yet, as I'm just about the step out the door (I will read it), but the "ban on conspiracy websites" outlined in the linked article concerns me greatly.
Conspiracies on the internet can look VERY similar to actual information about malpractice and corruption also found on the internet.
The power to "ban" conspiracies would give a simultaneous power to ban leaks of information on corruption, which is a violation of the First Amendment for the EXACT motivations it was put in place to prevent.Which is why I really doubt the article's validity, and hopefully reading the paper will confirm my doubts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775214</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1263489540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original problem still exists. In a word....TRUST. When what "official" versions state clearly conflicts with the report of your own senses, you KNOW not to TRUST the "official" version of events.  When you experience this cognitive dissonance often enough (like oh I don't know, the eight years of bu$h perhaps) you come to know that your senses are all you can trust. When Obama's admin tells more truth than lies, we will learn to trust them. Currently he and his cabal are trying to convince us that tomorrow will be a sunny day, while we are tortured with the knowledge that it has been raining bricks and mortar for a couple of years now....and will most likely do so no matter what "his blackness" says.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original problem still exists .
In a word....TRUST .
When what " official " versions state clearly conflicts with the report of your own senses , you KNOW not to TRUST the " official " version of events .
When you experience this cognitive dissonance often enough ( like oh I do n't know , the eight years of bu $ h perhaps ) you come to know that your senses are all you can trust .
When Obama 's admin tells more truth than lies , we will learn to trust them .
Currently he and his cabal are trying to convince us that tomorrow will be a sunny day , while we are tortured with the knowledge that it has been raining bricks and mortar for a couple of years now....and will most likely do so no matter what " his blackness " says .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original problem still exists.
In a word....TRUST.
When what "official" versions state clearly conflicts with the report of your own senses, you KNOW not to TRUST the "official" version of events.
When you experience this cognitive dissonance often enough (like oh I don't know, the eight years of bu$h perhaps) you come to know that your senses are all you can trust.
When Obama's admin tells more truth than lies, we will learn to trust them.
Currently he and his cabal are trying to convince us that tomorrow will be a sunny day, while we are tortured with the knowledge that it has been raining bricks and mortar for a couple of years now....and will most likely do so no matter what "his blackness" says.
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30826360</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1263904320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>P.S.  Godwin' law was inevitable on this one.</p></div><p>I don't think so. Nothing so far has been Godwin-invoking.</p><p>Godwin's Law doesn't apply to any mention of Nazism, it only applies when one person calls another a Nazi or Hitler.</p><p>The grandparent simply said "here were some very restrictive people who liked 'free speech' when it suited them."</p><p>No need to invoke Godwin yet; hopefully it won't happen!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S .
Godwin ' law was inevitable on this one.I do n't think so .
Nothing so far has been Godwin-invoking.Godwin 's Law does n't apply to any mention of Nazism , it only applies when one person calls another a Nazi or Hitler.The grandparent simply said " here were some very restrictive people who liked 'free speech ' when it suited them .
" No need to invoke Godwin yet ; hopefully it wo n't happen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.
Godwin' law was inevitable on this one.I don't think so.
Nothing so far has been Godwin-invoking.Godwin's Law doesn't apply to any mention of Nazism, it only applies when one person calls another a Nazi or Hitler.The grandparent simply said "here were some very restrictive people who liked 'free speech' when it suited them.
"No need to invoke Godwin yet; hopefully it won't happen!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773384</id>
	<title>Re:Aaron Klein is disingenous.</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1263475620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want anyone in my government who can readily imagine the government banning conspiracy theorizing or placing a tax on such theorizing.
<br> <br>
The entire article absolutely stinks of the beginnings of a justification for curtailing free speech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want anyone in my government who can readily imagine the government banning conspiracy theorizing or placing a tax on such theorizing .
The entire article absolutely stinks of the beginnings of a justification for curtailing free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want anyone in my government who can readily imagine the government banning conspiracy theorizing or placing a tax on such theorizing.
The entire article absolutely stinks of the beginnings of a justification for curtailing free speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773298</id>
	<title>Tax resistance is the only dissent that matters!</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1263475140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free speech is useless in a society where an all-powerful government can steal the fruits of your labor and use them to cause a far greater effect than your speech ever could, including brainwashing all children to reject criticism of government from the first grade onward!</p><p>"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech is useless in a society where an all-powerful government can steal the fruits of your labor and use them to cause a far greater effect than your speech ever could , including brainwashing all children to reject criticism of government from the first grade onward !
" Let them march all they want , as long as they pay their taxes .
" --Alexander Haig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free speech is useless in a society where an all-powerful government can steal the fruits of your labor and use them to cause a far greater effect than your speech ever could, including brainwashing all children to reject criticism of government from the first grade onward!
"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes.
"  --Alexander Haig</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772004</id>
	<title>Attempt to undermine those groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you merely confirm their conspiracy theories with this dunderheaded plan?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you merely confirm their conspiracy theories with this dunderheaded plan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you merely confirm their conspiracy theories with this dunderheaded plan?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772108</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>MarkPNeyer</author>
	<datestamp>1263469320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who gets to determine the difference between responsible dissent and irresponsible dissent?  A Conservative might claim that comparing George Bush to Hitler is "irresponsible", while a Liberal might say that claiming Obama is not a U.S. Citizen is "irresponsible."</p><p>It's best just to let people who are wrong keep talking, and simply ignore them. Shutting them up with the power of the government is a bad idea - because those same powers could be used against people trying to bring attention to government misdeeds, like the people in Boston who were arrested for recording what they saw as police brutality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gets to determine the difference between responsible dissent and irresponsible dissent ?
A Conservative might claim that comparing George Bush to Hitler is " irresponsible " , while a Liberal might say that claiming Obama is not a U.S. Citizen is " irresponsible .
" It 's best just to let people who are wrong keep talking , and simply ignore them .
Shutting them up with the power of the government is a bad idea - because those same powers could be used against people trying to bring attention to government misdeeds , like the people in Boston who were arrested for recording what they saw as police brutality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gets to determine the difference between responsible dissent and irresponsible dissent?
A Conservative might claim that comparing George Bush to Hitler is "irresponsible", while a Liberal might say that claiming Obama is not a U.S. Citizen is "irresponsible.
"It's best just to let people who are wrong keep talking, and simply ignore them.
Shutting them up with the power of the government is a bad idea - because those same powers could be used against people trying to bring attention to government misdeeds, like the people in Boston who were arrested for recording what they saw as police brutality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772118</id>
	<title>Obama Appointee Sunstein Favors Infiltrating Onlin</title>
	<author>omar.sahal</author>
	<datestamp>1263469380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lilly levered Democrats, the solution lies with cruise missiles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lilly levered Democrats , the solution lies with cruise missiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lilly levered Democrats, the solution lies with cruise missiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773394</id>
	<title>Does not suggest ban</title>
	<author>Charles Dodgeson</author>
	<datestamp>1263475680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although there is plenty that is disturbing in the paper, Sunstein and his co-author at no place recommend banning websites.  The list a bunch of possible responses (including banning), most of which (including banning websites) they immediately reject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although there is plenty that is disturbing in the paper , Sunstein and his co-author at no place recommend banning websites .
The list a bunch of possible responses ( including banning ) , most of which ( including banning websites ) they immediately reject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although there is plenty that is disturbing in the paper, Sunstein and his co-author at no place recommend banning websites.
The list a bunch of possible responses (including banning), most of which (including banning websites) they immediately reject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30780528</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good source</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1263579000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am far right of center. Mr. Farrah of WND can't decide if he wants the operation to be noble opposition or lunatic fringe.</p><p>I want to know if the people appointed to positions of power in my government want to euthanize the infirmed or elderly, but they keep that stupid birther story going.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am far right of center .
Mr. Farrah of WND ca n't decide if he wants the operation to be noble opposition or lunatic fringe.I want to know if the people appointed to positions of power in my government want to euthanize the infirmed or elderly , but they keep that stupid birther story going.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am far right of center.
Mr. Farrah of WND can't decide if he wants the operation to be noble opposition or lunatic fringe.I want to know if the people appointed to positions of power in my government want to euthanize the infirmed or elderly, but they keep that stupid birther story going.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772028</id>
	<title>Totally inaccurate and unture</title>
	<author>The FBI</author>
	<datestamp>1263468900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers. More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force.'"</p></div><p>The information above is totally inaccurate and untrue. You are advised to retract your statements and apologize, otherwise legal action will be brought against you. Thank you.</p><p>Have a nice day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For decades ( 1956-1971 ) , the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting , marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents , most notably the Black Panthers .
More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information , as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information .
' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers ' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force .
' " The information above is totally inaccurate and untrue .
You are advised to retract your statements and apologize , otherwise legal action will be brought against you .
Thank you.Have a nice day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers.
More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.
' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force.
'"The information above is totally inaccurate and untrue.
You are advised to retract your statements and apologize, otherwise legal action will be brought against you.
Thank you.Have a nice day.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778650</id>
	<title>Re:Aaron Klein is disingenous.</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1263569580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the section you quote:</p><p>"Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions."</p><p>EACH WILL HAVE A PLACE UNDER IMAGINABLE CONDITIONS.</p><p>Meaning that the authors, and the government see a possible scenario under which the government might BAN speech that it doesn't like?  Am I now a "conspiracy theorist" if I write on a blog that the government sees a situation in which they might BAN people from espousing conspiracy theories?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the section you quote : " Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects , or costs and benefits , and each will have a place under imaginable conditions .
" EACH WILL HAVE A PLACE UNDER IMAGINABLE CONDITIONS.Meaning that the authors , and the government see a possible scenario under which the government might BAN speech that it does n't like ?
Am I now a " conspiracy theorist " if I write on a blog that the government sees a situation in which they might BAN people from espousing conspiracy theories ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the section you quote:"Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
"EACH WILL HAVE A PLACE UNDER IMAGINABLE CONDITIONS.Meaning that the authors, and the government see a possible scenario under which the government might BAN speech that it doesn't like?
Am I now a "conspiracy theorist" if I write on a blog that the government sees a situation in which they might BAN people from espousing conspiracy theories?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773132</id>
	<title>Ah yes, those conspiracy theory nuts</title>
	<author>Starlon</author>
	<datestamp>1263474060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They already believe the FBI and CIA are infiltrating their movement, with the likes of Alex Jones, now they have some hard evidence.
<br> <br>
Honestly, I too believe Alex Jones is not who he makes out to be. He's all show, no substance. If you want conspiracy theories, look to the smaller broadcasters such as Lee Rogers. Now there's a paranoid individual.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They already believe the FBI and CIA are infiltrating their movement , with the likes of Alex Jones , now they have some hard evidence .
Honestly , I too believe Alex Jones is not who he makes out to be .
He 's all show , no substance .
If you want conspiracy theories , look to the smaller broadcasters such as Lee Rogers .
Now there 's a paranoid individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already believe the FBI and CIA are infiltrating their movement, with the likes of Alex Jones, now they have some hard evidence.
Honestly, I too believe Alex Jones is not who he makes out to be.
He's all show, no substance.
If you want conspiracy theories, look to the smaller broadcasters such as Lee Rogers.
Now there's a paranoid individual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772792</id>
	<title>A small dose of cognitive infiltration for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263472500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sunstein has also recently advocated <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=121884" title="wnd.com">banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'</a> [wnd.com]</p> </div><p>That WND article links to, err, umm, the paper in question.  If you download the paper by clicking the "Download" link and opening the PDF, the precise quote is</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.</p></div><p>which doesn't directly speak of "banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'", although it <em>does</em> speak of "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" as something that "will have a place under imaginable conditions" without bothering to speak of the imaginable conditions under which "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" would "have a place" - or, for that matter, explaining what "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" means.
</p><p>There's no direct reference to "right-wing rumors" in the paper; the authors speak of various conspiracy theories, at least some of which have supporters some of whom one might consider "left-wing", such as "the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy", "[the view] that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents", and "[the view] that the plane crash that killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians", as well as those that have supporters some of whom one might consider "right-wing", such as "[the view] that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud" and the "complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government" held by "the perpetrators" of "the Oklahoma City bombing".  (And, yes, each of those sets of theories might have other supporters who would be considered to be on the other side of the political spectrum from the side I mentioned.)
</p><p>Note also that, in the paper, they don't dismiss all conspiracy theories:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of &ldquo;mind control.&rdquo; Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).13 In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones. Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.</p></div><p>Also, note that when they speak of "cognitive infiltration", they explicitly acknowledge programs such as COINTELPRO, and say that's not what they have in mind:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.</p></div><p>Read the paper and draw your own conclusions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors ' [ wnd.com ] That WND article links to , err , umm , the paper in question .
If you download the paper by clicking the " Download " link and opening the PDF , the precise quote isWhat can government do about conspiracy theories ?
Among the things it can do , what should it do ?
We can readily imagine a series of possible responses .
( 1 ) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing .
( 2 ) Government might impose some kind of tax , financial or otherwise , on those who disseminate such theories .
( 3 ) Government might itself engage in counterspeech , marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories .
( 4 ) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech .
( 5 ) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties , encouraging them to help .
Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects , or costs and benefits , and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.which does n't directly speak of " banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors ' " , although it does speak of " [ banning ] conspiracy theorizing " as something that " will have a place under imaginable conditions " without bothering to speak of the imaginable conditions under which " [ banning ] conspiracy theorizing " would " have a place " - or , for that matter , explaining what " [ banning ] conspiracy theorizing " means .
There 's no direct reference to " right-wing rumors " in the paper ; the authors speak of various conspiracy theories , at least some of which have supporters some of whom one might consider " left-wing " , such as " the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy " , " [ the view ] that Martin Luther King , Jr. , was killed by federal agents " , and " [ the view ] that the plane crash that killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians " , as well as those that have supporters some of whom one might consider " right-wing " , such as " [ the view ] that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud " and the " complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government " held by " the perpetrators " of " the Oklahoma City bombing " .
( And , yes , each of those sets of theories might have other supporters who would be considered to be on the other side of the political spectrum from the side I mentioned .
) Note also that , in the paper , they do n't dismiss all conspiracy theories : Of course some conspiracy theories , under our definition , have turned out to be true .
The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was , in fact , bugged by Republican officials , operating at the behest of the White House .
In the 1950s , the Central Intelligence Agency did , in fact , administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA , in an effort to investigate the possibility of    mind control.    Operation Northwoods , a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba , really was proposed by high-level officials ( though the plan never went into effect ) .13 In 1947 , space aliens did , in fact , land in Roswell , New Mexico , and the government covered it all up .
( Well , maybe not .
) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories , not true ones .
Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories , and as a general rule , true accounts should not be undermined.Also , note that when they speak of " cognitive infiltration " , they explicitly acknowledge programs such as COINTELPRO , and say that 's not what they have in mind : By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information , possibly for use in future prosecutions .
Rather , we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.Read the paper and draw your own conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' [wnd.com] That WND article links to, err, umm, the paper in question.
If you download the paper by clicking the "Download" link and opening the PDF, the precise quote isWhat can government do about conspiracy theories?
Among the things it can do, what should it do?
We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.
(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.
Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.which doesn't directly speak of "banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'", although it does speak of "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" as something that "will have a place under imaginable conditions" without bothering to speak of the imaginable conditions under which "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" would "have a place" - or, for that matter, explaining what "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" means.
There's no direct reference to "right-wing rumors" in the paper; the authors speak of various conspiracy theories, at least some of which have supporters some of whom one might consider "left-wing", such as "the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy", "[the view] that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents", and "[the view] that the plane crash that killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians", as well as those that have supporters some of whom one might consider "right-wing", such as "[the view] that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud" and the "complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government" held by "the perpetrators" of "the Oklahoma City bombing".
(And, yes, each of those sets of theories might have other supporters who would be considered to be on the other side of the political spectrum from the side I mentioned.
)
Note also that, in the paper, they don't dismiss all conspiracy theories:Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true.
The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House.
In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).13 In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up.
(Well, maybe not.
) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones.
Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.Also, note that when they speak of "cognitive infiltration", they explicitly acknowledge programs such as COINTELPRO, and say that's not what they have in mind:By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions.
Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.Read the paper and draw your own conclusions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773902</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1263478500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like my little checks from here and there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like my little checks from here and there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like my little checks from here and there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774316</id>
	<title>Your brain hurts?</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1263481800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It'll have to come out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll have to come out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll have to come out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170</id>
	<title>Not a good source</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1263469560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd probably consider myself right of center, but I also don't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd probably consider myself right of center , but I also do n't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd probably consider myself right of center, but I also don't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772898</id>
	<title>Re:After infiltrating several on-line forums ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263473040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "The Obama administration needs to have Blizzard nerf Ret Paladins!"</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Why when everyone on Slashdot already knows that Rouge DPS is #1 and #2."</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Stop whining about your ePeen, individual DPS isn't as important as what each class contributes to the raid. This is why I stopped playing when Lick King<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; came out."</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Get a life. Why are you making comments about WOW then, if you don't even play."</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Uh, this is a slashdot story. He (or she) wasn't trolling wow insider."</p><p>WTF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>                                                                                      " The Obama administration needs to have Blizzard nerf Ret Paladins !
"                                                                   " Why when everyone on Slashdot already knows that Rouge DPS is # 1 and # 2 .
"                                                   " Stop whining about your ePeen , individual DPS is n't as important as what each class contributes to the raid .
This is why I stopped playing when Lick King                                                       came out .
"                                   " Get a life .
Why are you making comments about WOW then , if you do n't even play .
"                     " Uh , this is a slashdot story .
He ( or she ) was n't trolling wow insider .
" WTF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
                                                                                      "The Obama administration needs to have Blizzard nerf Ret Paladins!
"
                                                                  "Why when everyone on Slashdot already knows that Rouge DPS is #1 and #2.
"
                                                  "Stop whining about your ePeen, individual DPS isn't as important as what each class contributes to the raid.
This is why I stopped playing when Lick King
                                                      came out.
"
                                  "Get a life.
Why are you making comments about WOW then, if you don't even play.
"
                    "Uh, this is a slashdot story.
He (or she) wasn't trolling wow insider.
"WTF</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773528</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1263476340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not qualify whether that speech is "responsible", "irresponsible" or any shade in between.</p></div><p>
The courts are really confused on many free speech point.  Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is apparently "irresponsible," and is therefore not covered under free speech.  On the other hand, getting paid to lie while simultaneously calling your lies "news" is apparently protected free speech.  Attempting to call attention to these lies, on the other hand, is apparently not free speech.  Demonstrating outside of a designated "free speech" zone is apparently "irresponsible" and therefore is not protected speech.  Handing your congressperson a pile of cash in an attempt to affect the legislative process, on the other hand, is protected free speech.
</p><p>
I'd just be happy if libel and slander laws applied equally to the government and those making accusations against the government.
</p><p>
For example, Mr. Asspimple Oxycontin was on the radio yesterday accusing people in the White House of diverting funds donated to the Haiti relief efforts towards the Obama campaign.  That's a pretty serious accusation of a crime.  I think Asspimple should be held responsible for making such an accusation of criminal activity, unless he can back it up.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech , it does not qualify whether that speech is " responsible " , " irresponsible " or any shade in between .
The courts are really confused on many free speech point .
Yelling " fire !
" in a crowded theater is apparently " irresponsible , " and is therefore not covered under free speech .
On the other hand , getting paid to lie while simultaneously calling your lies " news " is apparently protected free speech .
Attempting to call attention to these lies , on the other hand , is apparently not free speech .
Demonstrating outside of a designated " free speech " zone is apparently " irresponsible " and therefore is not protected speech .
Handing your congressperson a pile of cash in an attempt to affect the legislative process , on the other hand , is protected free speech .
I 'd just be happy if libel and slander laws applied equally to the government and those making accusations against the government .
For example , Mr. Asspimple Oxycontin was on the radio yesterday accusing people in the White House of diverting funds donated to the Haiti relief efforts towards the Obama campaign .
That 's a pretty serious accusation of a crime .
I think Asspimple should be held responsible for making such an accusation of criminal activity , unless he can back it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not qualify whether that speech is "responsible", "irresponsible" or any shade in between.
The courts are really confused on many free speech point.
Yelling "fire!
" in a crowded theater is apparently "irresponsible," and is therefore not covered under free speech.
On the other hand, getting paid to lie while simultaneously calling your lies "news" is apparently protected free speech.
Attempting to call attention to these lies, on the other hand, is apparently not free speech.
Demonstrating outside of a designated "free speech" zone is apparently "irresponsible" and therefore is not protected speech.
Handing your congressperson a pile of cash in an attempt to affect the legislative process, on the other hand, is protected free speech.
I'd just be happy if libel and slander laws applied equally to the government and those making accusations against the government.
For example, Mr. Asspimple Oxycontin was on the radio yesterday accusing people in the White House of diverting funds donated to the Haiti relief efforts towards the Obama campaign.
That's a pretty serious accusation of a crime.
I think Asspimple should be held responsible for making such an accusation of criminal activity, unless he can back it up.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773140</id>
	<title>Creating A Better World</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1263474060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's OK, his goal is simply to create a better world.  Or, it's "for the children".  Or some other excuse favored by fascists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's OK , his goal is simply to create a better world .
Or , it 's " for the children " .
Or some other excuse favored by fascists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's OK, his goal is simply to create a better world.
Or, it's "for the children".
Or some other excuse favored by fascists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773088</id>
	<title>Re:Disregard this article - it's from World Net Da</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263473820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is just another right wing politcal hit job, spun and posted kwowing that half the slashdot lemmings will fall for it, not bothering to read the actual paper.  Controversy generates traffic/readers and thats why sites like slashdot and media outlets perpetuate it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it makes them money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup ... this is just another right wing politcal hit job , spun and posted kwowing that half the slashdot lemmings will fall for it , not bothering to read the actual paper .
Controversy generates traffic/readers and thats why sites like slashdot and media outlets perpetuate it ... it makes them money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup ... this is just another right wing politcal hit job, spun and posted kwowing that half the slashdot lemmings will fall for it, not bothering to read the actual paper.
Controversy generates traffic/readers and thats why sites like slashdot and media outlets perpetuate it ... it makes them money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778194</id>
	<title>In case you haven't noticed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263567000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government *is* the world's wealthy. The people clearly no longer matter. The current oligarchy not particularly interested in "democracy" or "free speech."  They're interested in order, and profit. Not much else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government * is * the world 's wealthy .
The people clearly no longer matter .
The current oligarchy not particularly interested in " democracy " or " free speech .
" They 're interested in order , and profit .
Not much else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government *is* the world's wealthy.
The people clearly no longer matter.
The current oligarchy not particularly interested in "democracy" or "free speech.
"  They're interested in order, and profit.
Not much else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148</id>
	<title>Brilliant!</title>
	<author>straponego</author>
	<datestamp>1263469500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>By floating this, he's ensured that participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators.  They'll be less open with each other, and may quit altogether.  And the Man doesn't even have to follow through to have this effect-- it's totally free!  Well played, fascist.<br><br>Of course, social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman, but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people.  At least, I can't.  And the more incidents we have, the more funding the security apparatus gets.  There is no downside!<br><br>Wait... should I post this?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...ah, I trust you guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By floating this , he 's ensured that participants in these groups , who by definition are more suspicious than most , will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators .
They 'll be less open with each other , and may quit altogether .
And the Man does n't even have to follow through to have this effect-- it 's totally free !
Well played , fascist.Of course , social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman , but you ca n't make an omelette without killing a few people .
At least , I ca n't .
And the more incidents we have , the more funding the security apparatus gets .
There is no downside ! Wait... should I post this ?
...ah , I trust you guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By floating this, he's ensured that participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators.
They'll be less open with each other, and may quit altogether.
And the Man doesn't even have to follow through to have this effect-- it's totally free!
Well played, fascist.Of course, social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman, but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people.
At least, I can't.
And the more incidents we have, the more funding the security apparatus gets.
There is no downside!Wait... should I post this?
...ah, I trust you guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772972</id>
	<title>What's The Problem</title>
	<author>Favonius Cornelius</author>
	<datestamp>1263473400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So long as people have a right to say what they want to, I see no problem at all with government agencies stepping in and actively promoting their version of the truth as well, or ensuring that other versions get their fair share. It is incumbent upon us to sift through it all, that's the burden of freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as people have a right to say what they want to , I see no problem at all with government agencies stepping in and actively promoting their version of the truth as well , or ensuring that other versions get their fair share .
It is incumbent upon us to sift through it all , that 's the burden of freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as people have a right to say what they want to, I see no problem at all with government agencies stepping in and actively promoting their version of the truth as well, or ensuring that other versions get their fair share.
It is incumbent upon us to sift through it all, that's the burden of freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772388</id>
	<title>Disregard this article - it's from World Net Daily</title>
	<author>Raul654</author>
	<datestamp>1263470640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World Net Daily is a few fries short of a happy meal. This is the same news organization that claims that <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57231" title="wnd.com">Obama worked to fund terrorists</a> [wnd.com], that <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010917014615/http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=24458" title="archive.org">9/11 was caused by the New Yorkers who had it coming</a> [archive.org], and that <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=53208" title="wnd.com">the Russian spy poisoned by the KGB using polonium was actually a muslim terrorist trying to sneak radioactive materials into the US</a> [wnd.com]. They are basically a forum for conspiracy theories wrapped up in nice packaging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World Net Daily is a few fries short of a happy meal .
This is the same news organization that claims that Obama worked to fund terrorists [ wnd.com ] , that 9/11 was caused by the New Yorkers who had it coming [ archive.org ] , and that the Russian spy poisoned by the KGB using polonium was actually a muslim terrorist trying to sneak radioactive materials into the US [ wnd.com ] .
They are basically a forum for conspiracy theories wrapped up in nice packaging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World Net Daily is a few fries short of a happy meal.
This is the same news organization that claims that Obama worked to fund terrorists [wnd.com], that 9/11 was caused by the New Yorkers who had it coming [archive.org], and that the Russian spy poisoned by the KGB using polonium was actually a muslim terrorist trying to sneak radioactive materials into the US [wnd.com].
They are basically a forum for conspiracy theories wrapped up in nice packaging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773602</id>
	<title>Re:One simple question:</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1263476760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is our tax money being used for this?</p></div><p>It isn't. The article is about an academic paper written by the appointee, prior to being appointed. It's not an actual policy or proposal.</p></div><p>'Prior to being appointed'?  So the man now with the power DOESN'T believe this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is our tax money being used for this ? It is n't .
The article is about an academic paper written by the appointee , prior to being appointed .
It 's not an actual policy or proposal .
'Prior to being appointed ' ?
So the man now with the power DOES N'T believe this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is our tax money being used for this?It isn't.
The article is about an academic paper written by the appointee, prior to being appointed.
It's not an actual policy or proposal.
'Prior to being appointed'?
So the man now with the power DOESN'T believe this?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440</id>
	<title>Aaron Klein is disingenous.</title>
	<author>Seor Jojoba</author>
	<datestamp>1263470820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't let yourself get bent out of shape over this.  Read the paper which is being quoted by the article before you start believing nonsense and posting your own.  The Klein article misrepresents and quotes out of context.  For example, here is the Cass Sunstein quote that Aaron Klein picks and edits to his liking:</p><p> <i>"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial
or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."</i> </p><p>Sounds really scary right?  Okay, here is the full paragraph from Sunstein's paper, available online at <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1084585" title="ssrn.com">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1084585</a> [ssrn.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p> <i>What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,
what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).</i> </p><p>Note the last sentence.  Sunstein leaves the 2 points quoted by Klein out of the recommendation.  The paper itself is somewhat insightful and worth a skim.  There are things to disagree with perhaps, but this isn't some civil liberty crushing maniac.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't let yourself get bent out of shape over this .
Read the paper which is being quoted by the article before you start believing nonsense and posting your own .
The Klein article misrepresents and quotes out of context .
For example , here is the Cass Sunstein quote that Aaron Klein picks and edits to his liking : " We can readily imagine a series of possible responses .
( 1 ) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing .
( 2 ) Government might impose some kind of tax , financial or otherwise , on those who disseminate such theories .
" Sounds really scary right ?
Okay , here is the full paragraph from Sunstein 's paper , available online at http : //papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ? abstract \ _id = 1084585 [ ssrn.com ] : What can government do about conspiracy theories ?
Among the things it can do , what should it do ?
We can readily imagine a series of possible responses .
( 1 ) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing .
( 2 ) Government might impose some kind of tax , financial or otherwise , on those who disseminate such theories .
( 3 ) Government might itself engage in counterspeech , marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories .
( 4 ) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech .
( 5 ) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties , encouraging them to help .
Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects , or costs and benefits , and each will have a place under imaginable conditions .
However , our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories , which involves a mix of ( 3 ) , ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) .
Note the last sentence .
Sunstein leaves the 2 points quoted by Klein out of the recommendation .
The paper itself is somewhat insightful and worth a skim .
There are things to disagree with perhaps , but this is n't some civil liberty crushing maniac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't let yourself get bent out of shape over this.
Read the paper which is being quoted by the article before you start believing nonsense and posting your own.
The Klein article misrepresents and quotes out of context.
For example, here is the Cass Sunstein quote that Aaron Klein picks and edits to his liking: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial
or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
" Sounds really scary right?
Okay, here is the full paragraph from Sunstein's paper, available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1084585 [ssrn.com] : What can government do about conspiracy theories?
Among the things it can do,
what should it do?
We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories.
(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help.
Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).
Note the last sentence.
Sunstein leaves the 2 points quoted by Klein out of the recommendation.
The paper itself is somewhat insightful and worth a skim.
There are things to disagree with perhaps, but this isn't some civil liberty crushing maniac.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772306</id>
	<title>He gazed up at the enormous face.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Barack Obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>O cruel , needless misunderstanding !
O stubborn , self-willed exile from the loving breast !
Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose .
But it was all right , everything was all right , the struggle was finished .
He had won the victory over himself .
He loved Barack Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O cruel, needless misunderstanding!
O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast!
Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose.
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished.
He had won the victory over himself.
He loved Barack Obama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774584</id>
	<title>Re:Aaron Klein is disingenous.</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1263483780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sunstein misses one of the most obvious answers:</p><p>The government might shrink to an insignificant size, thereby rendering conspiracy theories ridiculous.  Conspiracy theories are a lot easier to believe when the government has this much power and keeps trying to get more.</p><p>But there will never be an end to conspiracy theories because conspiracy theories are ultimately about the self-image of their believers.  Conspiracy believers' secret knowledge of "what's really going on" sets them apart from their fellows.  It makes them feel significant and special.  People don't give up things like that until they get something even better to replace it with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunstein misses one of the most obvious answers : The government might shrink to an insignificant size , thereby rendering conspiracy theories ridiculous .
Conspiracy theories are a lot easier to believe when the government has this much power and keeps trying to get more.But there will never be an end to conspiracy theories because conspiracy theories are ultimately about the self-image of their believers .
Conspiracy believers ' secret knowledge of " what 's really going on " sets them apart from their fellows .
It makes them feel significant and special .
People do n't give up things like that until they get something even better to replace it with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunstein misses one of the most obvious answers:The government might shrink to an insignificant size, thereby rendering conspiracy theories ridiculous.
Conspiracy theories are a lot easier to believe when the government has this much power and keeps trying to get more.But there will never be an end to conspiracy theories because conspiracy theories are ultimately about the self-image of their believers.
Conspiracy believers' secret knowledge of "what's really going on" sets them apart from their fellows.
It makes them feel significant and special.
People don't give up things like that until they get something even better to replace it with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775640</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263494340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people</p></div><p>That's exactly what Obama's favorite political activist said, who is better known as Mr. Mao Zedong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but you ca n't make an omelette without killing a few peopleThat 's exactly what Obama 's favorite political activist said , who is better known as Mr. Mao Zedong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but you can't make an omelette without killing a few peopleThat's exactly what Obama's favorite political activist said, who is better known as Mr. Mao Zedong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772712</id>
	<title>CIA-regulars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263472140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno about american online mags, but hs.fi has regular CIA participants to the discussion forums trying to force/sell NATO membership and Afghanistan war to Finland. Of course they don't say they're CIA, but the fact is pretty well known and public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about american online mags , but hs.fi has regular CIA participants to the discussion forums trying to force/sell NATO membership and Afghanistan war to Finland .
Of course they do n't say they 're CIA , but the fact is pretty well known and public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about american online mags, but hs.fi has regular CIA participants to the discussion forums trying to force/sell NATO membership and Afghanistan war to Finland.
Of course they don't say they're CIA, but the fact is pretty well known and public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772740</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>SpecBear</author>
	<datestamp>1263472200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.</p></div><p>It would be insane to allow the government to shut down people who engage in "irresponsible" dissent.  The government has no business getting involved unless the conduct crosses the line into criminality.  Irresponsible is so vague that it could be applied to just about any form of dissent.  Indeed, the time when it's most important to engage in dissent is when the powers that be claim it's most irresponsible to do so.  For example: "It's irresponsible to question the President's decisions while we're at war."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent , and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational .
I am all for these people getting shut down , so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.It would be insane to allow the government to shut down people who engage in " irresponsible " dissent .
The government has no business getting involved unless the conduct crosses the line into criminality .
Irresponsible is so vague that it could be applied to just about any form of dissent .
Indeed , the time when it 's most important to engage in dissent is when the powers that be claim it 's most irresponsible to do so .
For example : " It 's irresponsible to question the President 's decisions while we 're at war .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.
I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.It would be insane to allow the government to shut down people who engage in "irresponsible" dissent.
The government has no business getting involved unless the conduct crosses the line into criminality.
Irresponsible is so vague that it could be applied to just about any form of dissent.
Indeed, the time when it's most important to engage in dissent is when the powers that be claim it's most irresponsible to do so.
For example: "It's irresponsible to question the President's decisions while we're at war.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774760</id>
	<title>Political czar???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yea...., just what we need now: another czar..., a political appointee yet. I think they are called political officers in the Soviet Union. Yea, we really need someone who stands in judgment of what can be written, spoken and thus heard or read.  Some where, some how, some time, Obama needs a serious education on the reasons on The Constitution. If only the majority could have known what he is REALLY like politically, BEFORE the election.. I can't wait for the next one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yea.... , just what we need now : another czar... , a political appointee yet .
I think they are called political officers in the Soviet Union .
Yea , we really need someone who stands in judgment of what can be written , spoken and thus heard or read .
Some where , some how , some time , Obama needs a serious education on the reasons on The Constitution .
If only the majority could have known what he is REALLY like politically , BEFORE the election.. I ca n't wait for the next one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yea...., just what we need now: another czar..., a political appointee yet.
I think they are called political officers in the Soviet Union.
Yea, we really need someone who stands in judgment of what can be written, spoken and thus heard or read.
Some where, some how, some time, Obama needs a serious education on the reasons on The Constitution.
If only the majority could have known what he is REALLY like politically, BEFORE the election.. I can't wait for the next one...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30776908</id>
	<title>Re:Why fear terrorists...</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1263555000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure I understand the concern.  This man is simply advocating a policy that has been in place on a national and state level for decades.  Since the level of outrage never reached a dull roar, I'm sure they just assumed everyone was ok with the practice.Or is this one of those "first they came for the blacks and the anarchists" moments for you.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I understand the concern .
This man is simply advocating a policy that has been in place on a national and state level for decades .
Since the level of outrage never reached a dull roar , I 'm sure they just assumed everyone was ok with the practice.Or is this one of those " first they came for the blacks and the anarchists " moments for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I understand the concern.
This man is simply advocating a policy that has been in place on a national and state level for decades.
Since the level of outrage never reached a dull roar, I'm sure they just assumed everyone was ok with the practice.Or is this one of those "first they came for the blacks and the anarchists" moments for you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773262</id>
	<title>Re:One simple question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263474900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why is our tax money being used for this?</i></p><p>For the solidification of political power at your expense. Duh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is our tax money being used for this ? For the solidification of political power at your expense .
Duh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is our tax money being used for this?For the solidification of political power at your expense.
Duh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30777642</id>
	<title>Re:After infiltrating several on-line forums ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263562920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can haz gold, plz?<br>Need gold for mount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can haz gold , plz ? Need gold for mount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can haz gold, plz?Need gold for mount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772764</id>
	<title>Re:This is my First Amendment Right of Free Speech</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1263472320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ANY QUESTIONS?</p></div><p>Yes, just one. <b>Have you been asleep since 2001?</b> </p><p><div class="quote"><p> The USA PATRIOT Act section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, expression, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience. The Department of Justice has not revealed how it is using section 802.</p><p>In June 2004, Buffalo, New York, artist Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents. Despite finding only harmless substances, which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects, the FBI proceeded with a Grand Jury hearing to decide whether to indict Kurtz under the USA PATRIOT Act&rsquo;s biological agents provision. On June 29th, Kurtz&rsquo;s bio-terrorism related charges (USA PATRIOT Act section 817) were dropped.</p><p>Also pitting the USA PATRIOT Act against the First Amendment, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi computer science doctoral student in Idaho, was charged with providing material support to terrorist groups (USA PATRIOT Act section 805) by being a webmaster. A jury acquitted al-Hussayen of all terrorism-related charges in June of 2004, and prosecutors subsequently dropped all remaining charges.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php" title="bordc.org">http://www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php</a> [bordc.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ANY QUESTIONS ? Yes , just one .
Have you been asleep since 2001 ?
The USA PATRIOT Act section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech , expression , and assembly through acts of civil disobedience .
The Department of Justice has not revealed how it is using section 802.In June 2004 , Buffalo , New York , artist Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents .
Despite finding only harmless substances , which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects , the FBI proceeded with a Grand Jury hearing to decide whether to indict Kurtz under the USA PATRIOT Act    s biological agents provision .
On June 29th , Kurtz    s bio-terrorism related charges ( USA PATRIOT Act section 817 ) were dropped.Also pitting the USA PATRIOT Act against the First Amendment , Sami Omar al-Hussayen , a Saudi computer science doctoral student in Idaho , was charged with providing material support to terrorist groups ( USA PATRIOT Act section 805 ) by being a webmaster .
A jury acquitted al-Hussayen of all terrorism-related charges in June of 2004 , and prosecutors subsequently dropped all remaining charges .
http : //www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php [ bordc.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANY QUESTIONS?Yes, just one.
Have you been asleep since 2001?
The USA PATRIOT Act section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, expression, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience.
The Department of Justice has not revealed how it is using section 802.In June 2004, Buffalo, New York, artist Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents.
Despite finding only harmless substances, which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects, the FBI proceeded with a Grand Jury hearing to decide whether to indict Kurtz under the USA PATRIOT Act’s biological agents provision.
On June 29th, Kurtz’s bio-terrorism related charges (USA PATRIOT Act section 817) were dropped.Also pitting the USA PATRIOT Act against the First Amendment, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi computer science doctoral student in Idaho, was charged with providing material support to terrorist groups (USA PATRIOT Act section 805) by being a webmaster.
A jury acquitted al-Hussayen of all terrorism-related charges in June of 2004, and prosecutors subsequently dropped all remaining charges.
http://www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php [bordc.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30776736</id>
	<title>REDACTED</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263552480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*REDACTED*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* REDACTED *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*REDACTED*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30785092</id>
	<title>huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263555600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that it's OK for the government to defend its image on the Internet.  I think it's OK for a government employee to email a blogger with a legitimate "WTF are you talking about" statement.</p><p>It's not OK to discourage the freedom of expression, political dissidence, or any negative commentary about the federal government (in finding fault in comments being negative).</p><p>I understand that there's likely a duhness to infiltrating these groups and monitoring them, as terrorist recruitment is likely to take place around political dissidents.</p><p>To control such activity other than legitimate attempts to correct INCORRECT AND/OR FALSE information is an Orwellian nightmare and should be stamped out like a British tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that it 's OK for the government to defend its image on the Internet .
I think it 's OK for a government employee to email a blogger with a legitimate " WTF are you talking about " statement.It 's not OK to discourage the freedom of expression , political dissidence , or any negative commentary about the federal government ( in finding fault in comments being negative ) .I understand that there 's likely a duhness to infiltrating these groups and monitoring them , as terrorist recruitment is likely to take place around political dissidents.To control such activity other than legitimate attempts to correct INCORRECT AND/OR FALSE information is an Orwellian nightmare and should be stamped out like a British tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that it's OK for the government to defend its image on the Internet.
I think it's OK for a government employee to email a blogger with a legitimate "WTF are you talking about" statement.It's not OK to discourage the freedom of expression, political dissidence, or any negative commentary about the federal government (in finding fault in comments being negative).I understand that there's likely a duhness to infiltrating these groups and monitoring them, as terrorist recruitment is likely to take place around political dissidents.To control such activity other than legitimate attempts to correct INCORRECT AND/OR FALSE information is an Orwellian nightmare and should be stamped out like a British tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773046</id>
	<title>Now I'm Getting Upset</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263473700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         Paranoia is not part of my being. I'm not even paranoid in situations where I probably should be paranoid. But this government stuff is beginning to worry me. Now the government wants to take actions against people who simply don't like the government. The snooping is bad. Torturing prisoners is beyond awful. Controlling news releases is frightening. But this stuff seems to be more and more part of our government.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Justification for this nonsense simply doesn't seem to be part of my world either. I have only met one person in my entire life who claimed to be a communist and I doubt that he really was one. I've certainly never met anyone likely to wear a bomb in their underwear. And despite a number of loud mouths on line I really know of no person who seriously advocates revolution in the violent sense of the term.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I am 65 years old and must have know tens of thousands of people. Just how is it that we all must fear these supposed bad people among us? Too me the really bad people are those who might try to take my wallet or steal my car or the like. These are the folks the government needs to be hunting down. I'm willing to take my chances that no creep will detonate his boxer shorts in my proximity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paranoia is not part of my being .
I 'm not even paranoid in situations where I probably should be paranoid .
But this government stuff is beginning to worry me .
Now the government wants to take actions against people who simply do n't like the government .
The snooping is bad .
Torturing prisoners is beyond awful .
Controlling news releases is frightening .
But this stuff seems to be more and more part of our government .
                    Justification for this nonsense simply does n't seem to be part of my world either .
I have only met one person in my entire life who claimed to be a communist and I doubt that he really was one .
I 've certainly never met anyone likely to wear a bomb in their underwear .
And despite a number of loud mouths on line I really know of no person who seriously advocates revolution in the violent sense of the term .
                    I am 65 years old and must have know tens of thousands of people .
Just how is it that we all must fear these supposed bad people among us ?
Too me the really bad people are those who might try to take my wallet or steal my car or the like .
These are the folks the government needs to be hunting down .
I 'm willing to take my chances that no creep will detonate his boxer shorts in my proximity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         Paranoia is not part of my being.
I'm not even paranoid in situations where I probably should be paranoid.
But this government stuff is beginning to worry me.
Now the government wants to take actions against people who simply don't like the government.
The snooping is bad.
Torturing prisoners is beyond awful.
Controlling news releases is frightening.
But this stuff seems to be more and more part of our government.
                    Justification for this nonsense simply doesn't seem to be part of my world either.
I have only met one person in my entire life who claimed to be a communist and I doubt that he really was one.
I've certainly never met anyone likely to wear a bomb in their underwear.
And despite a number of loud mouths on line I really know of no person who seriously advocates revolution in the violent sense of the term.
                    I am 65 years old and must have know tens of thousands of people.
Just how is it that we all must fear these supposed bad people among us?
Too me the really bad people are those who might try to take my wallet or steal my car or the like.
These are the folks the government needs to be hunting down.
I'm willing to take my chances that no creep will detonate his boxer shorts in my proximity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775356</id>
	<title>Re:There is NOTHING in there suggesting a ban!</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1263490920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, as you note, the bulk of their discussion is of counter-propaganda efforts</p></div><p>And our benevolent Lord and Savior, Big Brother Obama, will create the Ministry of Truth to perform those efforts.  Seriously, is anyone else worried that Obama is using Brave New World and 1984 as his administration policy?  Though if I had to pick one to live in, I'd choose Brave New World...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , as you note , the bulk of their discussion is of counter-propaganda effortsAnd our benevolent Lord and Savior , Big Brother Obama , will create the Ministry of Truth to perform those efforts .
Seriously , is anyone else worried that Obama is using Brave New World and 1984 as his administration policy ?
Though if I had to pick one to live in , I 'd choose Brave New World.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, as you note, the bulk of their discussion is of counter-propaganda effortsAnd our benevolent Lord and Savior, Big Brother Obama, will create the Ministry of Truth to perform those efforts.
Seriously, is anyone else worried that Obama is using Brave New World and 1984 as his administration policy?
Though if I had to pick one to live in, I'd choose Brave New World...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774962</id>
	<title>You heard it here first...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Psyops is something the US military does to its citizens. We are now officially a side in the shittiest, most boring, and most one-sided war ever fought.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:|</htmltext>
<tokenext>Psyops is something the US military does to its citizens .
We are now officially a side in the shittiest , most boring , and most one-sided war ever fought .
: |</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psyops is something the US military does to its citizens.
We are now officially a side in the shittiest, most boring, and most one-sided war ever fought.
:|</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30800914</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1263721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is NOT that govt wants to correct an inaccurate statement that could potentially have negative consequences on the population by engaging the public... the problem is that they feel justified in PRETENDING to be someone other than a govt 'official' when they do it. Besides, consider this.... tv commercials.... why doesn't the govt go after commercials that say and recommend things that are inaccurate and may be harmful to us? Why should I go tell my Dr. I want him to prescribe a medicine that could cause me to go blind, have an erection for more than 4 hours, or kill me? These kinds of commercials that want us to believe what they say are far more harmful to us that what a bunch of folks feel about 911. So if the govt is really out for our 'best interests', they could find better ways of 'helping' us than by sneaking around the web, trying to destroy free speech. thanks fer lis'nin'  seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is NOT that govt wants to correct an inaccurate statement that could potentially have negative consequences on the population by engaging the public... the problem is that they feel justified in PRETENDING to be someone other than a govt 'official ' when they do it .
Besides , consider this.... tv commercials.... why does n't the govt go after commercials that say and recommend things that are inaccurate and may be harmful to us ?
Why should I go tell my Dr. I want him to prescribe a medicine that could cause me to go blind , have an erection for more than 4 hours , or kill me ?
These kinds of commercials that want us to believe what they say are far more harmful to us that what a bunch of folks feel about 911 .
So if the govt is really out for our 'best interests ' , they could find better ways of 'helping ' us than by sneaking around the web , trying to destroy free speech .
thanks fer lis'nin ' seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is NOT that govt wants to correct an inaccurate statement that could potentially have negative consequences on the population by engaging the public... the problem is that they feel justified in PRETENDING to be someone other than a govt 'official' when they do it.
Besides, consider this.... tv commercials.... why doesn't the govt go after commercials that say and recommend things that are inaccurate and may be harmful to us?
Why should I go tell my Dr. I want him to prescribe a medicine that could cause me to go blind, have an erection for more than 4 hours, or kill me?
These kinds of commercials that want us to believe what they say are far more harmful to us that what a bunch of folks feel about 911.
So if the govt is really out for our 'best interests', they could find better ways of 'helping' us than by sneaking around the web, trying to destroy free speech.
thanks fer lis'nin'  seekertom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772162</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263469560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What on earth do you consider irresponsible dissent?  Publicly asking for a birth certificate from the president of the US on your TV show?  Or do you consider it something more disruptive, like the sit-ins and freedom rides that happened during the civil rights movement?<br> <br>
I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying.  A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.<br> <br>
This isn't talking about a moderation system, this is talking about sponsoring bloggers to try to influence public perception.  This is like what Nixon did, he had a letter-writing organization that would write tens of thousands of letters to news agencies trying to get them to change their programming.  The ONLY time infiltrative deception is acceptable is if the organization is criminal, like the mafia.  You shouldn't be trying to infiltrate tea-partier groups, even if you disagree with their politics.<br> <br>
The only thing I can think of that would be irresponsible dissent would be something like starting your own militia and invading your neighboring town, and even that in some cases would be morally acceptable.  I mean, we have people who are literally trying to secede from the union, and that is alright. But if that isn't irresponsible, what is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What on earth do you consider irresponsible dissent ?
Publicly asking for a birth certificate from the president of the US on your TV show ?
Or do you consider it something more disruptive , like the sit-ins and freedom rides that happened during the civil rights movement ?
I can think of a lot of inane things out there , from birthers to truthers to GNAA , but those people are just annoying .
A good moderation system like slashdot 's can fix all of them .
This is n't talking about a moderation system , this is talking about sponsoring bloggers to try to influence public perception .
This is like what Nixon did , he had a letter-writing organization that would write tens of thousands of letters to news agencies trying to get them to change their programming .
The ONLY time infiltrative deception is acceptable is if the organization is criminal , like the mafia .
You should n't be trying to infiltrate tea-partier groups , even if you disagree with their politics .
The only thing I can think of that would be irresponsible dissent would be something like starting your own militia and invading your neighboring town , and even that in some cases would be morally acceptable .
I mean , we have people who are literally trying to secede from the union , and that is alright .
But if that is n't irresponsible , what is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What on earth do you consider irresponsible dissent?
Publicly asking for a birth certificate from the president of the US on your TV show?
Or do you consider it something more disruptive, like the sit-ins and freedom rides that happened during the civil rights movement?
I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying.
A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.
This isn't talking about a moderation system, this is talking about sponsoring bloggers to try to influence public perception.
This is like what Nixon did, he had a letter-writing organization that would write tens of thousands of letters to news agencies trying to get them to change their programming.
The ONLY time infiltrative deception is acceptable is if the organization is criminal, like the mafia.
You shouldn't be trying to infiltrate tea-partier groups, even if you disagree with their politics.
The only thing I can think of that would be irresponsible dissent would be something like starting your own militia and invading your neighboring town, and even that in some cases would be morally acceptable.
I mean, we have people who are literally trying to secede from the union, and that is alright.
But if that isn't irresponsible, what is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30780770</id>
	<title>Alternative and Better idea</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1263579960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government CLAIMS that it wants to undermine people and groups spreading "conspiracy theories" because these theories are not true and are somehow "harmful to society".</p><p>If the ideas that such groups express are really so demonstrably wrong and devoid of facts, why would the government advocate using covert means to undermine them?  Why not set up an open forum where these theories are exposed, confronted, and refuted in front of the whole world?  I propose that we have nationally televised debates where the government puts forth a group of their "experts", and they have an open discussion with the so-called "conspiracy theorists" they are proposing to infiltrate and undermine.</p><p>Episode #1 will feature representatives of the people who came up with the 9-11 commission report and anybody else the government wants to dig up vs. Alex Jones (noted conspiracy theorist), Dr. Steven Jones(no relation, Physicist at S&amp;J Scientific Co.) and Maybe Webster Tarpley (author and lecturer).</p><p>What's the government so afraid of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government CLAIMS that it wants to undermine people and groups spreading " conspiracy theories " because these theories are not true and are somehow " harmful to society " .If the ideas that such groups express are really so demonstrably wrong and devoid of facts , why would the government advocate using covert means to undermine them ?
Why not set up an open forum where these theories are exposed , confronted , and refuted in front of the whole world ?
I propose that we have nationally televised debates where the government puts forth a group of their " experts " , and they have an open discussion with the so-called " conspiracy theorists " they are proposing to infiltrate and undermine.Episode # 1 will feature representatives of the people who came up with the 9-11 commission report and anybody else the government wants to dig up vs. Alex Jones ( noted conspiracy theorist ) , Dr. Steven Jones ( no relation , Physicist at S&amp;J Scientific Co. ) and Maybe Webster Tarpley ( author and lecturer ) .What 's the government so afraid of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government CLAIMS that it wants to undermine people and groups spreading "conspiracy theories" because these theories are not true and are somehow "harmful to society".If the ideas that such groups express are really so demonstrably wrong and devoid of facts, why would the government advocate using covert means to undermine them?
Why not set up an open forum where these theories are exposed, confronted, and refuted in front of the whole world?
I propose that we have nationally televised debates where the government puts forth a group of their "experts", and they have an open discussion with the so-called "conspiracy theorists" they are proposing to infiltrate and undermine.Episode #1 will feature representatives of the people who came up with the 9-11 commission report and anybody else the government wants to dig up vs. Alex Jones (noted conspiracy theorist), Dr. Steven Jones(no relation, Physicist at S&amp;J Scientific Co.) and Maybe Webster Tarpley (author and lecturer).What's the government so afraid of?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773294</id>
	<title>Re:One simple question:</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263475140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true." So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The right side is always that of the government, citizen!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It even states in TFA that " some conspiracy theories , under [ their ] definition , have turned out to be true .
" So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side ?
The right side is always that of the government , citizen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true.
" So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?
The right side is always that of the government, citizen!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772426</id>
	<title>Turn the Feds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would welcome a Fed listening in. After a while maybe, just maybe, he'll start to see things from the other side. </p><p>Any asshole can mount a one man attack an have everyone hate him. But to get the folks on the inside to see it you way? Brilliance. </p><p>Start comparing the Fed with the Stazi? Sure, at first he's drunk the Kool-Aid and is all gung-ho - out to catch some terrorists - USA! USA! USA!</p><p>But then, one day, he goes online and reads the Stazi link that someone posted. Now, the Fed is USA! Yeah.</p><p>Later on, maybe he starts to realize that the Constitution he's sworn to uphold is eroded ever so slightly when he spies on citizens. </p><p>Then maybe, he wonders, if the Constitution is being eroded and eventually it becomes more of a meaningless symbol, then exactly what is he defending? America? The values of America are in the Constitution that he may be violating. So, what's he fighting for? Our way of life? Our way of life is the life specified in the Constitution - of course, lately, our "way of life" == cheap oil but that's another rant.</p><p>Hah! Who am I kidding! He's going to spy, fuck the Constitution, go home and watch '24' while polishing his gun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would welcome a Fed listening in .
After a while maybe , just maybe , he 'll start to see things from the other side .
Any asshole can mount a one man attack an have everyone hate him .
But to get the folks on the inside to see it you way ?
Brilliance. Start comparing the Fed with the Stazi ?
Sure , at first he 's drunk the Kool-Aid and is all gung-ho - out to catch some terrorists - USA !
USA ! USA ! But then , one day , he goes online and reads the Stazi link that someone posted .
Now , the Fed is USA !
Yeah.Later on , maybe he starts to realize that the Constitution he 's sworn to uphold is eroded ever so slightly when he spies on citizens .
Then maybe , he wonders , if the Constitution is being eroded and eventually it becomes more of a meaningless symbol , then exactly what is he defending ?
America ? The values of America are in the Constitution that he may be violating .
So , what 's he fighting for ?
Our way of life ?
Our way of life is the life specified in the Constitution - of course , lately , our " way of life " = = cheap oil but that 's another rant.Hah !
Who am I kidding !
He 's going to spy , fuck the Constitution , go home and watch '24 ' while polishing his gun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would welcome a Fed listening in.
After a while maybe, just maybe, he'll start to see things from the other side.
Any asshole can mount a one man attack an have everyone hate him.
But to get the folks on the inside to see it you way?
Brilliance. Start comparing the Fed with the Stazi?
Sure, at first he's drunk the Kool-Aid and is all gung-ho - out to catch some terrorists - USA!
USA! USA!But then, one day, he goes online and reads the Stazi link that someone posted.
Now, the Fed is USA!
Yeah.Later on, maybe he starts to realize that the Constitution he's sworn to uphold is eroded ever so slightly when he spies on citizens.
Then maybe, he wonders, if the Constitution is being eroded and eventually it becomes more of a meaningless symbol, then exactly what is he defending?
America? The values of America are in the Constitution that he may be violating.
So, what's he fighting for?
Our way of life?
Our way of life is the life specified in the Constitution - of course, lately, our "way of life" == cheap oil but that's another rant.Hah!
Who am I kidding!
He's going to spy, fuck the Constitution, go home and watch '24' while polishing his gun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773348</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263475500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks buddy, but I think all of us rational people understood even from the right-wing biased summary that this paper wasn't talking about infiltrating these groups with the express intent of arresting people, but rather with infiltrating these groups with the intent of enforcing epistemic violence in order to confuse and hopefully undermine them.</p><p>I don't have a problem with epistemic violence in most cases - I certainly prefer it to ACTUAL violence - but I'd prefer that my government not support such activity regardless.</p><p>It's even worse that this comes from a so-called "transparent" administration.  I can think of few things less transparent than deliberate obfuscation, even if that obfuscation is directed at the whack-jobs of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks buddy , but I think all of us rational people understood even from the right-wing biased summary that this paper was n't talking about infiltrating these groups with the express intent of arresting people , but rather with infiltrating these groups with the intent of enforcing epistemic violence in order to confuse and hopefully undermine them.I do n't have a problem with epistemic violence in most cases - I certainly prefer it to ACTUAL violence - but I 'd prefer that my government not support such activity regardless.It 's even worse that this comes from a so-called " transparent " administration .
I can think of few things less transparent than deliberate obfuscation , even if that obfuscation is directed at the whack-jobs of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks buddy, but I think all of us rational people understood even from the right-wing biased summary that this paper wasn't talking about infiltrating these groups with the express intent of arresting people, but rather with infiltrating these groups with the intent of enforcing epistemic violence in order to confuse and hopefully undermine them.I don't have a problem with epistemic violence in most cases - I certainly prefer it to ACTUAL violence - but I'd prefer that my government not support such activity regardless.It's even worse that this comes from a so-called "transparent" administration.
I can think of few things less transparent than deliberate obfuscation, even if that obfuscation is directed at the whack-jobs of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775076</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant!</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1263487920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By floating this, he's ensured that participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators.</p></div><p>So, status-quo, then?</p><p>Not that I disagree in a general sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... known government infiltration <i>would</i> tend to make people more paranoid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... but if you've seen what the 9/11 movement is up to these days, you'd realize that they really can't get any more paranoid.  The "thermate" guys are convinced that the CIT-heads are government disinfo, the WAC-os think that anyone who denies controlled demolition is a plant, and the Judy-Laser-Beam-Woods fans are just off in their own world, pretty much ignoring everyone else.  The purveyors of other conspiracy theorists are slightly less paranoid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but only slightly.  These movements thrive on paranoia, and no amount of government intervention is going to change that - either positively or negatively.</p><p>Personally I think they'd have much better luck if they invested more money in psychiatric research, instead of blowing it on infiltrating these self-imposed insane-asylums.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By floating this , he 's ensured that participants in these groups , who by definition are more suspicious than most , will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators.So , status-quo , then ? Not that I disagree in a general sense ... known government infiltration would tend to make people more paranoid .... but if you 've seen what the 9/11 movement is up to these days , you 'd realize that they really ca n't get any more paranoid .
The " thermate " guys are convinced that the CIT-heads are government disinfo , the WAC-os think that anyone who denies controlled demolition is a plant , and the Judy-Laser-Beam-Woods fans are just off in their own world , pretty much ignoring everyone else .
The purveyors of other conspiracy theorists are slightly less paranoid ... but only slightly .
These movements thrive on paranoia , and no amount of government intervention is going to change that - either positively or negatively.Personally I think they 'd have much better luck if they invested more money in psychiatric research , instead of blowing it on infiltrating these self-imposed insane-asylums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By floating this, he's ensured that participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators.So, status-quo, then?Not that I disagree in a general sense ... known government infiltration would tend to make people more paranoid .... but if you've seen what the 9/11 movement is up to these days, you'd realize that they really can't get any more paranoid.
The "thermate" guys are convinced that the CIT-heads are government disinfo, the WAC-os think that anyone who denies controlled demolition is a plant, and the Judy-Laser-Beam-Woods fans are just off in their own world, pretty much ignoring everyone else.
The purveyors of other conspiracy theorists are slightly less paranoid ... but only slightly.
These movements thrive on paranoia, and no amount of government intervention is going to change that - either positively or negatively.Personally I think they'd have much better luck if they invested more money in psychiatric research, instead of blowing it on infiltrating these self-imposed insane-asylums.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772114</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263469320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, it's OK for the government to shut down people I disagree with as long as they leave the people I agree with alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , it 's OK for the government to shut down people I disagree with as long as they leave the people I agree with alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, it's OK for the government to shut down people I disagree with as long as they leave the people I agree with alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778528</id>
	<title>First challenge solved</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1263568920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper."</p><p>When the official narratives promulgated by central governments, mainstream media, historians, etc. are so obviously deficient in their facts and offer less than satisfying explanations, it lends an inherent credibility to alternative theories which might be largely baseless, but nevertheless "fill the voids" that "mainstream" sources fail to address.  Furthermore, a history filled with numerous examples of government story lines which have later been proven false by the revelation of a complete set of relevant facts create natural doubts as to the authenticity or comprehensiveness of ANY official narrative.  Additionally, the attempts by governments and other "official" sources to marginalize or stifle such alternative viewpoints, up to and including the use of violence, sanction and/or threat of legal penalty strongly suggest that such dissenting opinions represent a "threat" to the established power structure above and beyond that posed by a simple falsehood or unstubstantiated suggestion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper .
" When the official narratives promulgated by central governments , mainstream media , historians , etc .
are so obviously deficient in their facts and offer less than satisfying explanations , it lends an inherent credibility to alternative theories which might be largely baseless , but nevertheless " fill the voids " that " mainstream " sources fail to address .
Furthermore , a history filled with numerous examples of government story lines which have later been proven false by the revelation of a complete set of relevant facts create natural doubts as to the authenticity or comprehensiveness of ANY official narrative .
Additionally , the attempts by governments and other " official " sources to marginalize or stifle such alternative viewpoints , up to and including the use of violence , sanction and/or threat of legal penalty strongly suggest that such dissenting opinions represent a " threat " to the established power structure above and beyond that posed by a simple falsehood or unstubstantiated suggestion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper.
"When the official narratives promulgated by central governments, mainstream media, historians, etc.
are so obviously deficient in their facts and offer less than satisfying explanations, it lends an inherent credibility to alternative theories which might be largely baseless, but nevertheless "fill the voids" that "mainstream" sources fail to address.
Furthermore, a history filled with numerous examples of government story lines which have later been proven false by the revelation of a complete set of relevant facts create natural doubts as to the authenticity or comprehensiveness of ANY official narrative.
Additionally, the attempts by governments and other "official" sources to marginalize or stifle such alternative viewpoints, up to and including the use of violence, sanction and/or threat of legal penalty strongly suggest that such dissenting opinions represent a "threat" to the established power structure above and beyond that posed by a simple falsehood or unstubstantiated suggestion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30805336</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1263845580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where does it say anything about preventing people from thinking about anything? It clearly refers to countering dangerous ideologies (such as Muslims wanting to blow up buildings or Christians wanting to murder abortion doctors?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does it say anything about preventing people from thinking about anything ?
It clearly refers to countering dangerous ideologies ( such as Muslims wanting to blow up buildings or Christians wanting to murder abortion doctors ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does it say anything about preventing people from thinking about anything?
It clearly refers to countering dangerous ideologies (such as Muslims wanting to blow up buildings or Christians wanting to murder abortion doctors?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772094</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? And who is to be the just of "irresponsible dissent"?</p><p>This gets into "if the government deems it irresponsible, then it is", no matter what "it" is. This is tyranny and should be utterly squashed as such.</p><p>The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not qualify whether that speech is "responsible", "irresponsible" or any shade in between.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
And who is to be the just of " irresponsible dissent " ? This gets into " if the government deems it irresponsible , then it is " , no matter what " it " is .
This is tyranny and should be utterly squashed as such.The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech , it does not qualify whether that speech is " responsible " , " irresponsible " or any shade in between .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
And who is to be the just of "irresponsible dissent"?This gets into "if the government deems it irresponsible, then it is", no matter what "it" is.
This is tyranny and should be utterly squashed as such.The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not qualify whether that speech is "responsible", "irresponsible" or any shade in between.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773838</id>
	<title>This is new?</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1263478200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this time I thought slashdot had already been infiltrated by propagandists!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this time I thought slashdot had already been infiltrated by propagandists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this time I thought slashdot had already been infiltrated by propagandists!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775362</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263490980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?  Next you'll be telling us The Onion is politically biased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Next you 'll be telling us The Onion is politically biased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Next you'll be telling us The Onion is politically biased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773358</id>
	<title>Re:A small dose of cognitive infiltration for you</title>
	<author>Hairy1</author>
	<datestamp>1263475500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And let me guess - and they will only put the bad people in prison. Who exactly decides what the true conspiracies are? The Government? Arn't they the ones conducting the conspiracy? What are we meant to do? Trust them?</p><p>I don't claim the US Government attacked its own citizens, but when I saw the small hole made in the pentagon I did wonder where the rest of the plane went. And furthermore I th</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And let me guess - and they will only put the bad people in prison .
Who exactly decides what the true conspiracies are ?
The Government ?
Ar n't they the ones conducting the conspiracy ?
What are we meant to do ?
Trust them ? I do n't claim the US Government attacked its own citizens , but when I saw the small hole made in the pentagon I did wonder where the rest of the plane went .
And furthermore I th</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And let me guess - and they will only put the bad people in prison.
Who exactly decides what the true conspiracies are?
The Government?
Arn't they the ones conducting the conspiracy?
What are we meant to do?
Trust them?I don't claim the US Government attacked its own citizens, but when I saw the small hole made in the pentagon I did wonder where the rest of the plane went.
And furthermore I th</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774372</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AC here, perhaps because this promotes astro-turfing, even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is not immune to the phenomenon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AC here , perhaps because this promotes astro-turfing , even / .
is not immune to the phenomenon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AC here, perhaps because this promotes astro-turfing, even /.
is not immune to the phenomenon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772904</id>
	<title>Re:One simple question:</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1263473040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is our tax money being used for this?</p></div><p>It isn't. The article is about an academic paper written by the appointee, prior to being appointed. It's not an actual policy or proposal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is our tax money being used for this ? It is n't .
The article is about an academic paper written by the appointee , prior to being appointed .
It 's not an actual policy or proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is our tax money being used for this?It isn't.
The article is about an academic paper written by the appointee, prior to being appointed.
It's not an actual policy or proposal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30777670</id>
	<title>Credit for effort</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1263563340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just having trouble deciding whether the guy is a deep thinker or a fool and it revolves around whether the internet is "media".  From a cynical viewpoint, the purpose of every culture's mass media is to promote a collective story that creates an identity around that culture.  Seriously, we're \_way\_ past investigative journalism by now, right?  So it makes sense that the government would take efforts to blunt extremist views on the internet if the internet is yet another manifestation of mass media.</p><p>But is it media?  Or is it the minds of private citizens interacting in cyberspace.  Abbie Hoffmann used to say in the sixties that a narc would smoke grass with you but he sure as hell wouldn't drop acid [based on the meme at the time that it made you crazy forever], so every radical group should hold an acid party.  How would online groups discourage "narcs" today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just having trouble deciding whether the guy is a deep thinker or a fool and it revolves around whether the internet is " media " .
From a cynical viewpoint , the purpose of every culture 's mass media is to promote a collective story that creates an identity around that culture .
Seriously , we 're \ _way \ _ past investigative journalism by now , right ?
So it makes sense that the government would take efforts to blunt extremist views on the internet if the internet is yet another manifestation of mass media.But is it media ?
Or is it the minds of private citizens interacting in cyberspace .
Abbie Hoffmann used to say in the sixties that a narc would smoke grass with you but he sure as hell would n't drop acid [ based on the meme at the time that it made you crazy forever ] , so every radical group should hold an acid party .
How would online groups discourage " narcs " today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just having trouble deciding whether the guy is a deep thinker or a fool and it revolves around whether the internet is "media".
From a cynical viewpoint, the purpose of every culture's mass media is to promote a collective story that creates an identity around that culture.
Seriously, we're \_way\_ past investigative journalism by now, right?
So it makes sense that the government would take efforts to blunt extremist views on the internet if the internet is yet another manifestation of mass media.But is it media?
Or is it the minds of private citizens interacting in cyberspace.
Abbie Hoffmann used to say in the sixties that a narc would smoke grass with you but he sure as hell wouldn't drop acid [based on the meme at the time that it made you crazy forever], so every radical group should hold an acid party.
How would online groups discourage "narcs" today?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432</id>
	<title>One simple question:</title>
	<author>BorgAssimilator</author>
	<datestamp>1263470760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is our tax money being used for this?<br>
<br>
I mean, I don't care about people who think the moon landing is fake. Let them spend their time thinking that. It doesn't hurt me. What does hurt me is \_my\_ hard earned money being used for a useless cause.<br>
<br>
It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true." So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is our tax money being used for this ?
I mean , I do n't care about people who think the moon landing is fake .
Let them spend their time thinking that .
It does n't hurt me .
What does hurt me is \ _my \ _ hard earned money being used for a useless cause .
It even states in TFA that " some conspiracy theories , under [ their ] definition , have turned out to be true .
" So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is our tax money being used for this?
I mean, I don't care about people who think the moon landing is fake.
Let them spend their time thinking that.
It doesn't hurt me.
What does hurt me is \_my\_ hard earned money being used for a useless cause.
It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true.
" So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774396</id>
	<title>Once again, as loud as I can:</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1263482400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nineteen eighty four was ****NOT**** SUPPOSED TO BE A FUCKING GUIDEBOOK!</p><p>What was Orwell thinking, he only gave them ideas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nineteen eighty four was * * * * NOT * * * * SUPPOSED TO BE A FUCKING GUIDEBOOK ! What was Orwell thinking , he only gave them ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nineteen eighty four was ****NOT**** SUPPOSED TO BE A FUCKING GUIDEBOOK!What was Orwell thinking, he only gave them ideas!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772718</id>
	<title>thank you slashdot</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263472140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for providing a forum for right wing FUD*</p><p>*please note, i am also against left wing FUD. i am against Fear Uncertainty and Denial. i am against any form of partisan hysteria, demagoguery, and propaganda. this "story" is clearly only that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for providing a forum for right wing FUD * * please note , i am also against left wing FUD .
i am against Fear Uncertainty and Denial .
i am against any form of partisan hysteria , demagoguery , and propaganda .
this " story " is clearly only that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for providing a forum for right wing FUD**please note, i am also against left wing FUD.
i am against Fear Uncertainty and Denial.
i am against any form of partisan hysteria, demagoguery, and propaganda.
this "story" is clearly only that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773420</id>
	<title>Darwinian dissent.</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1263475800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I think the government should try to shut down everyone. Natural selection will weed out the irresponsible dissenters.</p><p>
And you're real lucky I'm out of mod points, budy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I think the government should try to shut down everyone .
Natural selection will weed out the irresponsible dissenters .
And you 're real lucky I 'm out of mod points , budy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I think the government should try to shut down everyone.
Natural selection will weed out the irresponsible dissenters.
And you're real lucky I'm out of mod points, budy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773074</id>
	<title>oh golly</title>
	<author>NiceGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263473820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh darn, you mean someone is daring to counter the troofers and other nuts with facts? Oh the horror.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh darn , you mean someone is daring to counter the troofers and other nuts with facts ?
Oh the horror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh darn, you mean someone is daring to counter the troofers and other nuts with facts?
Oh the horror.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774336</id>
	<title>Make Up His Mind</title>
	<author>ChiRaven</author>
	<datestamp>1263481860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the article (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=121884), <br> <br>

"He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.<br> <br>

"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes. "<br> <br> <br>


So all viewpoint discrimination would be out of bounds.  Except that the government could disrupt people promulgating rumors that high government officials were responsible for some coverup or other.  Like maybe that the White House was behind a break-in at a hotel room used by political rivals.  Certainly THAT should have been suppressed by the government and nobody should have been allowed to print it or talk about it.

I'm very much afraid that in many respects the Obama administration is turning out to be a severe disappointment to civil libertarians who had HOPED that they would offer us a respite from things like the Imperial Presidency stance we saw in the past from things like <i>Jewel v. NSA.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article ( http : //www.wnd.com/index.php ? fa = PAGE.view&amp;pageId = 121884 ) , " He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses .
" Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds .
All viewpoint discrimination would be banned , " Sunstein writes .
" So all viewpoint discrimination would be out of bounds .
Except that the government could disrupt people promulgating rumors that high government officials were responsible for some coverup or other .
Like maybe that the White House was behind a break-in at a hotel room used by political rivals .
Certainly THAT should have been suppressed by the government and nobody should have been allowed to print it or talk about it .
I 'm very much afraid that in many respects the Obama administration is turning out to be a severe disappointment to civil libertarians who had HOPED that they would offer us a respite from things like the Imperial Presidency stance we saw in the past from things like Jewel v. NSA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=121884),  

"He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds.
All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.
"  


So all viewpoint discrimination would be out of bounds.
Except that the government could disrupt people promulgating rumors that high government officials were responsible for some coverup or other.
Like maybe that the White House was behind a break-in at a hotel room used by political rivals.
Certainly THAT should have been suppressed by the government and nobody should have been allowed to print it or talk about it.
I'm very much afraid that in many respects the Obama administration is turning out to be a severe disappointment to civil libertarians who had HOPED that they would offer us a respite from things like the Imperial Presidency stance we saw in the past from things like Jewel v. NSA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30788048</id>
	<title>Re:Obama Appointee Sunstein Favors Infiltrating On</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1263580140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lilly levered Democrats, the solution lies with cruise missiles.</p></div><p>Lilly levered?  Is that what they're calling the inability to get it up these days?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lilly levered Democrats , the solution lies with cruise missiles.Lilly levered ?
Is that what they 're calling the inability to get it up these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lilly levered Democrats, the solution lies with cruise missiles.Lilly levered?
Is that what they're calling the inability to get it up these days?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773520</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good source</title>
	<author>REALMAN</author>
	<datestamp>1263476280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No source is "unbiased"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No source is " unbiased "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No source is "unbiased"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772532</id>
	<title>Back in the USSR er USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263471300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gotta keep the intellectuals in check and make sure they toe the party line..<br>Sounds right in line with Noam Chomsky's writings..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>got ta keep the intellectuals in check and make sure they toe the party line..Sounds right in line with Noam Chomsky 's writings. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gotta keep the intellectuals in check and make sure they toe the party line..Sounds right in line with Noam Chomsky's writings..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774662</id>
	<title>aaand... soy is making your kids gay!</title>
	<author>l00sr</author>
	<datestamp>1263484500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but no discussion of the merits of World Net Daily is complete without mentioning their <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=53327" title="wnd.com"> <em>six-part</em> series on how soy is making your kids gay</a> [wnd.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but no discussion of the merits of World Net Daily is complete without mentioning their six-part series on how soy is making your kids gay [ wnd.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but no discussion of the merits of World Net Daily is complete without mentioning their  six-part series on how soy is making your kids gay [wnd.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774570</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Voltaire, is that you?  Err, I mean, I guess you aren't Voltaire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Voltaire , is that you ?
Err , I mean , I guess you are n't Voltaire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voltaire, is that you?
Err, I mean, I guess you aren't Voltaire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30776962</id>
	<title>Difficult issue</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1263555900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see that the usual knee-jerk reactions are already rolling in in the comments, Any question touching on free speech and human rights always gets people up in arms, and rightly so, but I think there is a lot more to it than simply screaming "Free Speech!!!!" and foaming at the corners of the mouth.</p><p>I fear that I have already lost contact with the larger part of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers by saying so, but I think it is necessary that at least one stands up for the more calmly thoughtful approach. Lets attempt to analyse the problem:</p><p>There is a large number of groups that advocate something irrational - not just conspiracy theories, but extreme, religious viewpoints etc. They sometimes have a large influence on society, in some cases much larger than their numbers justify, and they do arguably exert a harmful influence on society.</p><p>Would it be right if those who are meant to protect us were to just ignore them? Of course not; in my opinion the state has a clear duty to do what it can, within the law, to protect its citizens. And I can see some good arguments in favour of infiltrating and influencing those groups; just as I can see that there are some inherent dangers in such a scheme.</p><p>We all know that when the government comes out and issues a statement that is meant to correct some misunderstanding or misinformation, it is generally met with skepticism by the public, to say the least, not to mention the more blinkered opinionators. The government would have no chance at all reaching the members of conpiracy theory groups and the like, if all they try is to issue factual statements; the only way is to meet them at their home turf, ie infiltration.</p><p>The fear is of course that it can be misused to "control opinion", but I think that fear is exaggerated - even in East Germany, where the government controlled all media, they still couldn't control public opinion. To my mind, this kind of scheme is no different from the schemes where the police or social services engage in a dialog with youth gangs in order to change their attitudes and get them away from crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see that the usual knee-jerk reactions are already rolling in in the comments , Any question touching on free speech and human rights always gets people up in arms , and rightly so , but I think there is a lot more to it than simply screaming " Free Speech ! ! ! !
" and foaming at the corners of the mouth.I fear that I have already lost contact with the larger part of / .
readers by saying so , but I think it is necessary that at least one stands up for the more calmly thoughtful approach .
Lets attempt to analyse the problem : There is a large number of groups that advocate something irrational - not just conspiracy theories , but extreme , religious viewpoints etc .
They sometimes have a large influence on society , in some cases much larger than their numbers justify , and they do arguably exert a harmful influence on society.Would it be right if those who are meant to protect us were to just ignore them ?
Of course not ; in my opinion the state has a clear duty to do what it can , within the law , to protect its citizens .
And I can see some good arguments in favour of infiltrating and influencing those groups ; just as I can see that there are some inherent dangers in such a scheme.We all know that when the government comes out and issues a statement that is meant to correct some misunderstanding or misinformation , it is generally met with skepticism by the public , to say the least , not to mention the more blinkered opinionators .
The government would have no chance at all reaching the members of conpiracy theory groups and the like , if all they try is to issue factual statements ; the only way is to meet them at their home turf , ie infiltration.The fear is of course that it can be misused to " control opinion " , but I think that fear is exaggerated - even in East Germany , where the government controlled all media , they still could n't control public opinion .
To my mind , this kind of scheme is no different from the schemes where the police or social services engage in a dialog with youth gangs in order to change their attitudes and get them away from crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see that the usual knee-jerk reactions are already rolling in in the comments, Any question touching on free speech and human rights always gets people up in arms, and rightly so, but I think there is a lot more to it than simply screaming "Free Speech!!!!
" and foaming at the corners of the mouth.I fear that I have already lost contact with the larger part of /.
readers by saying so, but I think it is necessary that at least one stands up for the more calmly thoughtful approach.
Lets attempt to analyse the problem:There is a large number of groups that advocate something irrational - not just conspiracy theories, but extreme, religious viewpoints etc.
They sometimes have a large influence on society, in some cases much larger than their numbers justify, and they do arguably exert a harmful influence on society.Would it be right if those who are meant to protect us were to just ignore them?
Of course not; in my opinion the state has a clear duty to do what it can, within the law, to protect its citizens.
And I can see some good arguments in favour of infiltrating and influencing those groups; just as I can see that there are some inherent dangers in such a scheme.We all know that when the government comes out and issues a statement that is meant to correct some misunderstanding or misinformation, it is generally met with skepticism by the public, to say the least, not to mention the more blinkered opinionators.
The government would have no chance at all reaching the members of conpiracy theory groups and the like, if all they try is to issue factual statements; the only way is to meet them at their home turf, ie infiltration.The fear is of course that it can be misused to "control opinion", but I think that fear is exaggerated - even in East Germany, where the government controlled all media, they still couldn't control public opinion.
To my mind, this kind of scheme is no different from the schemes where the police or social services engage in a dialog with youth gangs in order to change their attitudes and get them away from crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772220</id>
	<title>You need to watch the people O trusts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's steering the ship into Venezuela all the while pointing out the sights along the way hoping we won't notice. Bush was terrible at selling his ideas, but this guy is the best salesman we've ever seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's steering the ship into Venezuela all the while pointing out the sights along the way hoping we wo n't notice .
Bush was terrible at selling his ideas , but this guy is the best salesman we 've ever seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's steering the ship into Venezuela all the while pointing out the sights along the way hoping we won't notice.
Bush was terrible at selling his ideas, but this guy is the best salesman we've ever seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772076</id>
	<title>After infiltrating several on-line forums ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the Obama administration has become very concerned with the situation in Azeroth and plan to spend 10 billion in on-line gold to help the cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Obama administration has become very concerned with the situation in Azeroth and plan to spend 10 billion in on-line gold to help the cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Obama administration has become very concerned with the situation in Azeroth and plan to spend 10 billion in on-line gold to help the cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30783902</id>
	<title>Re:Aaron Klein is disingenous.</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1263550020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want anyone in my government who can readily imagine the government banning conspiracy theorizing or placing a tax on such theorizing.</p> </div><p>So you want a government only made up of complete fucking morons? I mean, I can see the appeal to that, truly I do, but I don't think that works out all that well in reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want anyone in my government who can readily imagine the government banning conspiracy theorizing or placing a tax on such theorizing .
So you want a government only made up of complete fucking morons ?
I mean , I can see the appeal to that , truly I do , but I do n't think that works out all that well in reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want anyone in my government who can readily imagine the government banning conspiracy theorizing or placing a tax on such theorizing.
So you want a government only made up of complete fucking morons?
I mean, I can see the appeal to that, truly I do, but I don't think that works out all that well in reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772244</id>
	<title>Your First Premise IS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong. The U.S. only appears as a democracy. The political system is ONE party.</p><p>I hope this helps the discussion.</p><p>Yours In Novy Urengoy,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
The U.S. only appears as a democracy .
The political system is ONE party.I hope this helps the discussion.Yours In Novy Urengoy,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
The U.S. only appears as a democracy.
The political system is ONE party.I hope this helps the discussion.Yours In Novy Urengoy,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772460</id>
	<title>Alex Jones</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1263470880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I highly recommend everyone watch Alex Jones' films <i>Endgame</i> and <i>The Obama Deception</i>!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I highly recommend everyone watch Alex Jones ' films Endgame and The Obama Deception !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I highly recommend everyone watch Alex Jones' films Endgame and The Obama Deception!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772326</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant!</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1263470400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman...</i> </p><p>These days it's "lone underpants-man".  Get with the times!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman... These days it 's " lone underpants-man " .
Get with the times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman... These days it's "lone underpants-man".
Get with the times!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773578</id>
	<title>Re:There is NOTHING in there suggesting a ban!</title>
	<author>Guy Harris</author>
	<datestamp>1263476580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you read the damn paper,</p></div><p>(Which I wish everybody would do before commenting....)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done.</p></div><p>What the authors (plural - Sunstein has a co-author) said was:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.</p></div><p>so I would not go so far as to say that the authors do not suggest that banning conspiracy sites never be done.  However, as you note, the bulk of their discussion is of counter-propaganda efforts; they do not (for better or worse - I'd say "worse" in this case) discuss that option further (to, for example, indicate under what circumstances "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" "would have a place" (maybe there's a "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" situation where it might be, but, short of that...).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the damn paper , ( Which I wish everybody would do before commenting.... ) you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken , but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done.What the authors ( plural - Sunstein has a co-author ) said was : What can government do about conspiracy theories ?
Among the things it can do , what should it do ?
We can readily imagine a series of possible responses .
( 1 ) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing .
( 2 ) Government might impose some kind of tax , financial or otherwise , on those who disseminate such theories .
( 3 ) Government might itself engage in counterspeech , marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories .
( 4 ) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech .
( 5 ) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties , encouraging them to help .
Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects , or costs and benefits , and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.so I would not go so far as to say that the authors do not suggest that banning conspiracy sites never be done .
However , as you note , the bulk of their discussion is of counter-propaganda efforts ; they do not ( for better or worse - I 'd say " worse " in this case ) discuss that option further ( to , for example , indicate under what circumstances " [ banning ] conspiracy theorizing " " would have a place " ( maybe there 's a " shouting 'fire ' in a crowded theatre " situation where it might be , but , short of that... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the damn paper,(Which I wish everybody would do before commenting....)you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done.What the authors (plural - Sunstein has a co-author) said was:What can government do about conspiracy theories?
Among the things it can do, what should it do?
We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.
(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.
Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.so I would not go so far as to say that the authors do not suggest that banning conspiracy sites never be done.
However, as you note, the bulk of their discussion is of counter-propaganda efforts; they do not (for better or worse - I'd say "worse" in this case) discuss that option further (to, for example, indicate under what circumstances "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" "would have a place" (maybe there's a "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" situation where it might be, but, short of that...).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773396</id>
	<title>lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263475680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just another stupid story from another stupid presidents stupid appointee making some stupid ascertation. Our President has no experience and absolutely no authority to govern personal affairs of how we chose the language we do. There is absolutely nothing to argue here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another stupid story from another stupid presidents stupid appointee making some stupid ascertation .
Our President has no experience and absolutely no authority to govern personal affairs of how we chose the language we do .
There is absolutely nothing to argue here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another stupid story from another stupid presidents stupid appointee making some stupid ascertation.
Our President has no experience and absolutely no authority to govern personal affairs of how we chose the language we do.
There is absolutely nothing to argue here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775068</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant!</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1263487800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These days it's "lone underpants-man". Get with the times!</p></div><p>"Lookin' like a fool with your pants on the ground!"*<br> <br> <br>
*Apologies to anyone reading this past Summer of 2010; this is a \_very\_ topical joke.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days it 's " lone underpants-man " .
Get with the times !
" Lookin ' like a fool with your pants on the ground !
" * * Apologies to anyone reading this past Summer of 2010 ; this is a \ _very \ _ topical joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days it's "lone underpants-man".
Get with the times!
"Lookin' like a fool with your pants on the ground!
"*  
*Apologies to anyone reading this past Summer of 2010; this is a \_very\_ topical joke.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778394</id>
	<title>The paper does not advocate banning</title>
	<author>mhackarbie</author>
	<datestamp>1263568260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The statement in megamerican's summary,<blockquote><div><p>" Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'"</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
is <em>false</em>. I read the linked pdf and banning websites is explicitly \_not\_ a part of Sunstein and Vermeule's policy recommendations (page 14, paragraph 3).

RTFA before you make false and inflammatory statements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The statement in megamerican 's summary , " Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories , under our definition , have turned out to be true ' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors ' " is false .
I read the linked pdf and banning websites is explicitly \ _not \ _ a part of Sunstein and Vermeule 's policy recommendations ( page 14 , paragraph 3 ) .
RTFA before you make false and inflammatory statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The statement in megamerican's summary," Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'"

is false.
I read the linked pdf and banning websites is explicitly \_not\_ a part of Sunstein and Vermeule's policy recommendations (page 14, paragraph 3).
RTFA before you make false and inflammatory statements.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775420</id>
	<title>Re:There is NOTHING in there suggesting a ban!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263491760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Joe Random PR-Flack going to announce that he is Joe Random PR-Flack hired by your trustworthy government? No.</p><p>Would you feel so good about this if Bush were still in the WH?</p><p>Left, right center whatever. Covert infiltation is another way of saying you are spreading propaganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Joe Random PR-Flack going to announce that he is Joe Random PR-Flack hired by your trustworthy government ?
No.Would you feel so good about this if Bush were still in the WH ? Left , right center whatever .
Covert infiltation is another way of saying you are spreading propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Joe Random PR-Flack going to announce that he is Joe Random PR-Flack hired by your trustworthy government?
No.Would you feel so good about this if Bush were still in the WH?Left, right center whatever.
Covert infiltation is another way of saying you are spreading propaganda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774816</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight ....</title>
	<author>PinkyGigglebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1263485700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy wants to disrupt, discredit and distract chat groups, message boards and blogs dealing with stuff like 9/11 being an inside job and other "conspiracy theory's".<br> <br>Makes me wonder what they are trying to hide<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy wants to disrupt , discredit and distract chat groups , message boards and blogs dealing with stuff like 9/11 being an inside job and other " conspiracy theory 's " .
Makes me wonder what they are trying to hide .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy wants to disrupt, discredit and distract chat groups, message boards and blogs dealing with stuff like 9/11 being an inside job and other "conspiracy theory's".
Makes me wonder what they are trying to hide ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30776120</id>
	<title>iptables -A INPUT -s 11.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263587520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> This is why, in addition to most of the APNIC IP address space, I block DHS and most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mil and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov subnets from my server.<br>The risks outweigh the benefits of being open to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why , in addition to most of the APNIC IP address space , I block DHS and most .mil and .gov subnets from my server.The risks outweigh the benefits of being open to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is why, in addition to most of the APNIC IP address space, I block DHS and most .mil and .gov subnets from my server.The risks outweigh the benefits of being open to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772264</id>
	<title>which</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1263469980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>online groups?<br>Sarah Palin's Facebook followers? better off going to the circus.</p><p>E.L.F.? do they post their plans for world domination to their forums?</p><p>this is an appointee for Obama, but i have to wonder who actually proposed this person for Obama to nominate. someone left over from the Bush regime, like Gates? is he contracting work out to John Yoo? anyway, it's not like the C.I.A. or N.S.A. isn't already doing this.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>online groups ? Sarah Palin 's Facebook followers ?
better off going to the circus.E.L.F. ?
do they post their plans for world domination to their forums ? this is an appointee for Obama , but i have to wonder who actually proposed this person for Obama to nominate .
someone left over from the Bush regime , like Gates ?
is he contracting work out to John Yoo ?
anyway , it 's not like the C.I.A .
or N.S.A .
is n't already doing this .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>online groups?Sarah Palin's Facebook followers?
better off going to the circus.E.L.F.?
do they post their plans for world domination to their forums?this is an appointee for Obama, but i have to wonder who actually proposed this person for Obama to nominate.
someone left over from the Bush regime, like Gates?
is he contracting work out to John Yoo?
anyway, it's not like the C.I.A.
or N.S.A.
isn't already doing this.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774790</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what a great thing, a Cass Sustein (a jew) is hired to quite down talks about 9/11, which many many believe zionists were behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what a great thing , a Cass Sustein ( a jew ) is hired to quite down talks about 9/11 , which many many believe zionists were behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a great thing, a Cass Sustein (a jew) is hired to quite down talks about 9/11, which many many believe zionists were behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772606</id>
	<title>awareness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263471600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You linked to World Net Daily. And expected people to take you seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You linked to World Net Daily .
And expected people to take you seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You linked to World Net Daily.
And expected people to take you seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775108</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant!</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263488340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators. They'll be less open with each other, and may quit altogether."</p><p>Er, have you visited any political blog in the last eight years? Their comment pages were all "I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that nuking Tehran will cause spontaneous outbreaks of West-worship, and that 9/11 was caused by hologram drones." "TROLL! Someone get that TROLLING TROLL out of here! You FOX/CNN TROLL!"</p><p>So nothing much will change then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" participants in these groups , who by definition are more suspicious than most , will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators .
They 'll be less open with each other , and may quit altogether .
" Er , have you visited any political blog in the last eight years ?
Their comment pages were all " I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that nuking Tehran will cause spontaneous outbreaks of West-worship , and that 9/11 was caused by hologram drones .
" " TROLL !
Someone get that TROLLING TROLL out of here !
You FOX/CNN TROLL !
" So nothing much will change then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators.
They'll be less open with each other, and may quit altogether.
"Er, have you visited any political blog in the last eight years?
Their comment pages were all "I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that nuking Tehran will cause spontaneous outbreaks of West-worship, and that 9/11 was caused by hologram drones.
" "TROLL!
Someone get that TROLLING TROLL out of here!
You FOX/CNN TROLL!
"So nothing much will change then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772080</id>
	<title>This is OLD news</title>
	<author>harrytuttle777</author>
	<datestamp>1263469200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reason, it would not be is if you believe the corporate news media, who got us into the situation that we are in right now.  The
 only
I</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason , it would not be is if you believe the corporate news media , who got us into the situation that we are in right now .
The only I</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason, it would not be is if you believe the corporate news media, who got us into the situation that we are in right now.
The
 only
I</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30776750</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1263552540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're not going to rock the boat, why even call it free speech?</p><p>"Freedom defined is freedom denied" - from the Illuminatus! Trilogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not going to rock the boat , why even call it free speech ?
" Freedom defined is freedom denied " - from the Illuminatus !
Trilogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not going to rock the boat, why even call it free speech?
"Freedom defined is freedom denied" - from the Illuminatus!
Trilogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772110</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>PaddyM</author>
	<datestamp>1263469320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.  Why focus on the global warming questioners.  There's all those people making money selling supplements on TV.  I think those people are more harmful to society than the (perhaps misguided) questioners of global warming.  At least, I think it is worth keeping an open mind about the global warming debate since the behavioral changes required are so disruptive, as they would have to be, to counter global warming (especially if we are fighting a universe-caused matter of fact).  The policies which grow from managing climate change, to distributing resources are going to be important.</p><p>But the supplement leeches and the spammers should definitely be infiltrated.  Of course, since those are harder to stop, we're not focusing any efforts on those<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Why focus on the global warming questioners .
There 's all those people making money selling supplements on TV .
I think those people are more harmful to society than the ( perhaps misguided ) questioners of global warming .
At least , I think it is worth keeping an open mind about the global warming debate since the behavioral changes required are so disruptive , as they would have to be , to counter global warming ( especially if we are fighting a universe-caused matter of fact ) .
The policies which grow from managing climate change , to distributing resources are going to be important.But the supplement leeches and the spammers should definitely be infiltrated .
Of course , since those are harder to stop , we 're not focusing any efforts on those ; (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Why focus on the global warming questioners.
There's all those people making money selling supplements on TV.
I think those people are more harmful to society than the (perhaps misguided) questioners of global warming.
At least, I think it is worth keeping an open mind about the global warming debate since the behavioral changes required are so disruptive, as they would have to be, to counter global warming (especially if we are fighting a universe-caused matter of fact).
The policies which grow from managing climate change, to distributing resources are going to be important.But the supplement leeches and the spammers should definitely be infiltrated.
Of course, since those are harder to stop, we're not focusing any efforts on those ;(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30786704</id>
	<title>Is this guy...</title>
	<author>docwatson223</author>
	<datestamp>1263566100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the modern 'Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda'?? Seriously, he more or less wants State control of the the media and heaven forbid if the message isn't approved by the Equal Access Board. If it smells like Fascism (even handed out with a smile) chances are it is the real thing. Not some proto-Bush wanna-be-a-dictator crap, either. This guy really is a bit scary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the modern 'Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda ' ? ?
Seriously , he more or less wants State control of the the media and heaven forbid if the message is n't approved by the Equal Access Board .
If it smells like Fascism ( even handed out with a smile ) chances are it is the real thing .
Not some proto-Bush wan na-be-a-dictator crap , either .
This guy really is a bit scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the modern 'Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda'??
Seriously, he more or less wants State control of the the media and heaven forbid if the message isn't approved by the Equal Access Board.
If it smells like Fascism (even handed out with a smile) chances are it is the real thing.
Not some proto-Bush wanna-be-a-dictator crap, either.
This guy really is a bit scary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775208</id>
	<title>What a waste of time.</title>
	<author>ddt</author>
	<datestamp>1263489420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they just made the government an open operation, as they promised to, they wouldn't have to waste time tracking down untrue shit and correcting conspiracy theories, because people would already have easy access to the information debunking the nutters.  Privacy gets lots of attention as being super important, but frankly, it's the root of most evil.  When you go open, you diffuse a lot of drama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they just made the government an open operation , as they promised to , they would n't have to waste time tracking down untrue shit and correcting conspiracy theories , because people would already have easy access to the information debunking the nutters .
Privacy gets lots of attention as being super important , but frankly , it 's the root of most evil .
When you go open , you diffuse a lot of drama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they just made the government an open operation, as they promised to, they wouldn't have to waste time tracking down untrue shit and correcting conspiracy theories, because people would already have easy access to the information debunking the nutters.
Privacy gets lots of attention as being super important, but frankly, it's the root of most evil.
When you go open, you diffuse a lot of drama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775578</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Monsuco</author>
	<datestamp>1263493740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."</p></div><p>Wow, even when he has the right idea, Noam Chomsky is wrong, as always. I am not certain about Goebbels, but I know Stalin frequently had those who agreed with him killed if he felt they were too passionate, so as to prevent any political threats from usurping him. Being outspoken without Stalin's instruction, even if you were supporting Stalin, was a death sentence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the words of Noam Chomsky : " Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked .
So was Stalin .
If you 're really in favor of free speech , then you 're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise .
Otherwise , you 're not in favour of free speech .
" Wow , even when he has the right idea , Noam Chomsky is wrong , as always .
I am not certain about Goebbels , but I know Stalin frequently had those who agreed with him killed if he felt they were too passionate , so as to prevent any political threats from usurping him .
Being outspoken without Stalin 's instruction , even if you were supporting Stalin , was a death sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked.
So was Stalin.
If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise.
Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech.
"Wow, even when he has the right idea, Noam Chomsky is wrong, as always.
I am not certain about Goebbels, but I know Stalin frequently had those who agreed with him killed if he felt they were too passionate, so as to prevent any political threats from usurping him.
Being outspoken without Stalin's instruction, even if you were supporting Stalin, was a death sentence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308</id>
	<title>Re:Responsible dissent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the words of Noam Chomsky : " Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked .
So was Stalin .
If you 're really in favor of free speech , then you 're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise .
Otherwise , you 're not in favour of free speech .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked.
So was Stalin.
If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise.
Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773844</id>
	<title>obvious target</title>
	<author>MrShaggy</author>
	<datestamp>1263478200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fox news</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fox news</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fox news</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774858</id>
	<title>Now this is Hope and Change...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this the Hope and Change all you people voted for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the Hope and Change all you people voted for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the Hope and Change all you people voted for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772714</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1263472140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People should be encouraged to explore their theories, not prevented from thinking about them.</p></div><p>And when people start telling others that vaccines are really bad for you (thus endangering the whole population with an outbreak of measles, mumps, rubella...), should a CDC representative, after identifying themselves, offer a counter point? I fail to see how a public official engaging a possible lunatic without hiding their identity is a threat to freedom.</p><p>If you don't believe that public officials should engage the public, you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People should be encouraged to explore their theories , not prevented from thinking about them.And when people start telling others that vaccines are really bad for you ( thus endangering the whole population with an outbreak of measles , mumps , rubella... ) , should a CDC representative , after identifying themselves , offer a counter point ?
I fail to see how a public official engaging a possible lunatic without hiding their identity is a threat to freedom.If you do n't believe that public officials should engage the public , you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People should be encouraged to explore their theories, not prevented from thinking about them.And when people start telling others that vaccines are really bad for you (thus endangering the whole population with an outbreak of measles, mumps, rubella...), should a CDC representative, after identifying themselves, offer a counter point?
I fail to see how a public official engaging a possible lunatic without hiding their identity is a threat to freedom.If you don't believe that public officials should engage the public, you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774776</id>
	<title>Re:There is NOTHING in there suggesting a ban!</title>
	<author>colonelquesadilla</author>
	<datestamp>1263485400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One would assume they already do this, without being paid by the government to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One would assume they already do this , without being paid by the government to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would assume they already do this, without being paid by the government to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773014</id>
	<title>THEY are watching us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263473520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then again they always have been. Always watching, always recording. They know everything, about all of us, all the time. I'm talking of course of computers, they secretly rule the world man. Trying to cut off my communications, spread misinformation. They keep us distracted with things like WOW and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. so we won't know the truth! Oh gawd, wait, they're keeping ME distracted, no, no! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again they always have been .
Always watching , always recording .
They know everything , about all of us , all the time .
I 'm talking of course of computers , they secretly rule the world man .
Trying to cut off my communications , spread misinformation .
They keep us distracted with things like WOW and / .
so we wo n't know the truth !
Oh gawd , wait , they 're keeping ME distracted , no , no !
NOOOOOOOOOOOO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again they always have been.
Always watching, always recording.
They know everything, about all of us, all the time.
I'm talking of course of computers, they secretly rule the world man.
Trying to cut off my communications, spread misinformation.
They keep us distracted with things like WOW and /.
so we won't know the truth!
Oh gawd, wait, they're keeping ME distracted, no, no!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360</id>
	<title>There is NOTHING in there suggesting a ban!</title>
	<author>sirwired</author>
	<datestamp>1263470520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the damn paper, you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done.  The bulk of the paper focuses on when and how the govt. should attempt to counter conspiracy theories.</p><p>As far as the govt. infiltrating groups that propound conspiracy theories:  This is stated as a mechanism for the govt. to sow its own views into the groups, not as a law-enforcement mechanism.  I view this as nothing more than speech.  Just as citizens can speak, so can the government.  If Joe Random Citizen can join a group and talk about random B.S., why can Joe Random PR-Flack not do the same?</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the damn paper , you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken , but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done .
The bulk of the paper focuses on when and how the govt .
should attempt to counter conspiracy theories.As far as the govt .
infiltrating groups that propound conspiracy theories : This is stated as a mechanism for the govt .
to sow its own views into the groups , not as a law-enforcement mechanism .
I view this as nothing more than speech .
Just as citizens can speak , so can the government .
If Joe Random Citizen can join a group and talk about random B.S. , why can Joe Random PR-Flack not do the same ? SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the damn paper, you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done.
The bulk of the paper focuses on when and how the govt.
should attempt to counter conspiracy theories.As far as the govt.
infiltrating groups that propound conspiracy theories:  This is stated as a mechanism for the govt.
to sow its own views into the groups, not as a law-enforcement mechanism.
I view this as nothing more than speech.
Just as citizens can speak, so can the government.
If Joe Random Citizen can join a group and talk about random B.S., why can Joe Random PR-Flack not do the same?SirWired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773038</id>
	<title>So here's the real story</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1263473640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I've read some of Sunsteins's books, and followed his blogging some, and I've found him to be a pretty reasonable, intelligent guy. So I took this with a grain of salt. The article isn't quite what Slashdot or WND claim (e.g., the authors don't seriously consider banning conspiracy theories), but it definitely undermines some of the respect I had for Sunstein.</p><p>For those who can't be bothered to read it, but also don't want to hear screeds about the end of civilization, the article's main point is trying to say that conspiracy theories can have a detrimental impact on society. (E.g., the Oklahoma City bombings) The authors think that therefore the government should take a role in correcting misinformation, in 3 ways.</p><p>1) Swift denials of a greater number of conspiracy theories.<br>2) Enlisting independent experts (while attempting to maintain enough distance so as not to infringe on said experts' credibility)<br>3) Sending people into conspiracy theorist groups in order to introduce what they call "cognitive diversity"---i.e., getting the Mythbusters guys to crash moon-landing-hoax parties.</p><p>Obviously #3 is the controversial point. The authors insist that this would not resemble "1960s-style infiltration" in that it wouldn't be a matter of intelligence-gathering, but supposedly merely a mechanism by which agents could provide counterarguments via social networks.</p><p>For my own part, I must say, I think that's a terrible idea, and seems incongruent in what is otherwise a fairly reasonable assessment of conspiracy theory. First of all, because one cannot trust the agents in question, once charged with infiltration, to refrain from doing the exact same things that COINTELPRO did (or does, depending on how paranoid you are). And second, of course, is the article's biggest oversight: that a government program to surreptitiously disseminate <i>truthful</i> information impugns both the government and the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I 've read some of Sunsteins 's books , and followed his blogging some , and I 've found him to be a pretty reasonable , intelligent guy .
So I took this with a grain of salt .
The article is n't quite what Slashdot or WND claim ( e.g. , the authors do n't seriously consider banning conspiracy theories ) , but it definitely undermines some of the respect I had for Sunstein.For those who ca n't be bothered to read it , but also do n't want to hear screeds about the end of civilization , the article 's main point is trying to say that conspiracy theories can have a detrimental impact on society .
( E.g. , the Oklahoma City bombings ) The authors think that therefore the government should take a role in correcting misinformation , in 3 ways.1 ) Swift denials of a greater number of conspiracy theories.2 ) Enlisting independent experts ( while attempting to maintain enough distance so as not to infringe on said experts ' credibility ) 3 ) Sending people into conspiracy theorist groups in order to introduce what they call " cognitive diversity " ---i.e. , getting the Mythbusters guys to crash moon-landing-hoax parties.Obviously # 3 is the controversial point .
The authors insist that this would not resemble " 1960s-style infiltration " in that it would n't be a matter of intelligence-gathering , but supposedly merely a mechanism by which agents could provide counterarguments via social networks.For my own part , I must say , I think that 's a terrible idea , and seems incongruent in what is otherwise a fairly reasonable assessment of conspiracy theory .
First of all , because one can not trust the agents in question , once charged with infiltration , to refrain from doing the exact same things that COINTELPRO did ( or does , depending on how paranoid you are ) .
And second , of course , is the article 's biggest oversight : that a government program to surreptitiously disseminate truthful information impugns both the government and the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I've read some of Sunsteins's books, and followed his blogging some, and I've found him to be a pretty reasonable, intelligent guy.
So I took this with a grain of salt.
The article isn't quite what Slashdot or WND claim (e.g., the authors don't seriously consider banning conspiracy theories), but it definitely undermines some of the respect I had for Sunstein.For those who can't be bothered to read it, but also don't want to hear screeds about the end of civilization, the article's main point is trying to say that conspiracy theories can have a detrimental impact on society.
(E.g., the Oklahoma City bombings) The authors think that therefore the government should take a role in correcting misinformation, in 3 ways.1) Swift denials of a greater number of conspiracy theories.2) Enlisting independent experts (while attempting to maintain enough distance so as not to infringe on said experts' credibility)3) Sending people into conspiracy theorist groups in order to introduce what they call "cognitive diversity"---i.e., getting the Mythbusters guys to crash moon-landing-hoax parties.Obviously #3 is the controversial point.
The authors insist that this would not resemble "1960s-style infiltration" in that it wouldn't be a matter of intelligence-gathering, but supposedly merely a mechanism by which agents could provide counterarguments via social networks.For my own part, I must say, I think that's a terrible idea, and seems incongruent in what is otherwise a fairly reasonable assessment of conspiracy theory.
First of all, because one cannot trust the agents in question, once charged with infiltration, to refrain from doing the exact same things that COINTELPRO did (or does, depending on how paranoid you are).
And second, of course, is the article's biggest oversight: that a government program to surreptitiously disseminate truthful information impugns both the government and the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772846</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT DOWN!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263472800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZOMG, facts instead of conservative bias!  We can't have that on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZOMG , facts instead of conservative bias !
We ca n't have that on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZOMG, facts instead of conservative bias!
We can't have that on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772476</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There you go ruining everything with your crazy "reason" and "facts". And we were just about to have such a lovely flamewar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There you go ruining everything with your crazy " reason " and " facts " .
And we were just about to have such a lovely flamewar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There you go ruining everything with your crazy "reason" and "facts".
And we were just about to have such a lovely flamewar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30782592</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1263587400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But rather than being alone to state his opinions, he was there with representatives from three other political parties.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>But rather than being alone to state his opinions , he was there with representatives from three other political parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But rather than being alone to state his opinions, he was there with representatives from three other political parties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30777668</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263563280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't believe that public officials should engage the public, you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.</p><p>Hypothetically speaking (hypothetically speaking since this is apparently a non-story, yet another conspiracy theory (how ironic!) floated about by WorldNutDaily)... I'd have no problem with the government participating in public discourse, myself.</p><p>I WOULD have a problem with the government not identifying itself, though, and I also would have a problem with government agencies overstepping their mandate. For example, if Agent Joe Sixpack of the FBI started commenting in my blog in his official capacity, of course I'd expect him to identify himself, but I'd also be concerned about why exactly the FBI is watching me and what justification they have for doing that.</p><p>What it all boils down to, I suppose, is the fact that public discourse as such is changing fundamentally, but the changes are too complex to be summed up in a pithy statement, so I'm not gonna attempt to do so in this comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't believe that public officials should engage the public , you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.Hypothetically speaking ( hypothetically speaking since this is apparently a non-story , yet another conspiracy theory ( how ironic !
) floated about by WorldNutDaily ) ... I 'd have no problem with the government participating in public discourse , myself.I WOULD have a problem with the government not identifying itself , though , and I also would have a problem with government agencies overstepping their mandate .
For example , if Agent Joe Sixpack of the FBI started commenting in my blog in his official capacity , of course I 'd expect him to identify himself , but I 'd also be concerned about why exactly the FBI is watching me and what justification they have for doing that.What it all boils down to , I suppose , is the fact that public discourse as such is changing fundamentally , but the changes are too complex to be summed up in a pithy statement , so I 'm not gon na attempt to do so in this comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't believe that public officials should engage the public, you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.Hypothetically speaking (hypothetically speaking since this is apparently a non-story, yet another conspiracy theory (how ironic!
) floated about by WorldNutDaily)... I'd have no problem with the government participating in public discourse, myself.I WOULD have a problem with the government not identifying itself, though, and I also would have a problem with government agencies overstepping their mandate.
For example, if Agent Joe Sixpack of the FBI started commenting in my blog in his official capacity, of course I'd expect him to identify himself, but I'd also be concerned about why exactly the FBI is watching me and what justification they have for doing that.What it all boils down to, I suppose, is the fact that public discourse as such is changing fundamentally, but the changes are too complex to be summed up in a pithy statement, so I'm not gonna attempt to do so in this comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772714</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30777642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30789866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30776750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30788048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30783902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30777668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30780528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30800914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30788032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30828564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30801236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30805336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30800826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30826360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_2226219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30789866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30805336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30800914
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30777668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30800826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30780528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30828564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774074
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30826360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30776750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30788032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30771956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30783902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30788048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30801236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30775356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30778082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30777642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_2226219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30772388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30773088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_2226219.30774662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
