<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_18_1725239</id>
	<title>US Blocking Costa Rican Sugar Trade To Force IP Laws</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263840000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>For the last couple of days news has been trickling in about how the US is trying to <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100115/1549467778.shtml">ram IP laws down Costa Rica's throat</a> by blocking their access to the US sugar market.  Techdirt has a good summary of the various commentaries and a related scoop in the Bahamas where the US is also applying IP pressure.  <i>"The first is in Costa Rica, which is included in the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Yet like with other free trade agreements that the US has agreed to elsewhere, this one includes draconian intellectual property law requirements. I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism &mdash; the exact opposite of 'free trade' &mdash; gets included in free trade agreements. At least in Costa Rica, a lot of people started protesting these rules, pointing out that it would be harmful for the economy, for education and for healthcare. So the Costa Rican government has not moved forward with such laws. How has the US responded? It's blocking access to the US market of Costa Rican sugar until Costa Rica approves new copyright laws."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the last couple of days news has been trickling in about how the US is trying to ram IP laws down Costa Rica 's throat by blocking their access to the US sugar market .
Techdirt has a good summary of the various commentaries and a related scoop in the Bahamas where the US is also applying IP pressure .
" The first is in Costa Rica , which is included in the Central America Free Trade Agreement ( CAFTA ) .
Yet like with other free trade agreements that the US has agreed to elsewhere , this one includes draconian intellectual property law requirements .
I still can not understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism    the exact opposite of 'free trade '    gets included in free trade agreements .
At least in Costa Rica , a lot of people started protesting these rules , pointing out that it would be harmful for the economy , for education and for healthcare .
So the Costa Rican government has not moved forward with such laws .
How has the US responded ?
It 's blocking access to the US market of Costa Rican sugar until Costa Rica approves new copyright laws .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the last couple of days news has been trickling in about how the US is trying to ram IP laws down Costa Rica's throat by blocking their access to the US sugar market.
Techdirt has a good summary of the various commentaries and a related scoop in the Bahamas where the US is also applying IP pressure.
"The first is in Costa Rica, which is included in the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
Yet like with other free trade agreements that the US has agreed to elsewhere, this one includes draconian intellectual property law requirements.
I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism — the exact opposite of 'free trade' — gets included in free trade agreements.
At least in Costa Rica, a lot of people started protesting these rules, pointing out that it would be harmful for the economy, for education and for healthcare.
So the Costa Rican government has not moved forward with such laws.
How has the US responded?
It's blocking access to the US market of Costa Rican sugar until Costa Rica approves new copyright laws.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811012</id>
	<title>And the sad thing is....</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1263845160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the sad thing is that if Costa Rica tells us to go fsck ourselves, while it will hurt Costa Rica's economy, all it will do here is help sell even more High Fructose Corn Syrup and help the corn lobby here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the sad thing is that if Costa Rica tells us to go fsck ourselves , while it will hurt Costa Rica 's economy , all it will do here is help sell even more High Fructose Corn Syrup and help the corn lobby here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the sad thing is that if Costa Rica tells us to go fsck ourselves, while it will hurt Costa Rica's economy, all it will do here is help sell even more High Fructose Corn Syrup and help the corn lobby here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811588</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263847800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why these trade rules aren't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me.</i></p><p>Because environmental concerns aren't part of the trade agreement.</p><p>This of it this way...</p><p>The United States cannot Create enough cane sugar to meets its demand.  However it does have a huge amount of valuable IP that it can sell.<br>Costa Rica has more Cane Sugar then they need but there is a demand for IP.</p><p>So you setup a trade agreement where you can buy their sugar and they can buy your IP as long we agree to particular rules.<br>Now Costa Rica may have put some rules on the United States... Perhaps we need to buy so many units minimum of Sugar...</p><p>IP is not imaginary property or it is as imaginary as money is.  There is real value to such property, as creating it has an expense.   Not giving IP law part of a trade agreement would be stupid it would be like allowing a non-US country to print US Dollars to pay legally pay for its products.</p><p>Lets put it an other way.  Lets say Costa Rica took GPL code and created a Closed Source application and began selling it across the world. Costa Rica could just ignore FSF and all the other groups who may say you cant do that.  In reality it isn't a case to create a war... However by doing this they would be in violation of IP laws and the host country could restrict trade.</p><p>It is not bullying or being evil.  It is about insuring we play by the agreed rules.  Selling Sugar to the United States keeps a lot of people in Costa Rica fed and alive.  Do you want to risk killing a major percentage of industry by breaking the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why these trade rules are n't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me.Because environmental concerns are n't part of the trade agreement.This of it this way...The United States can not Create enough cane sugar to meets its demand .
However it does have a huge amount of valuable IP that it can sell.Costa Rica has more Cane Sugar then they need but there is a demand for IP.So you setup a trade agreement where you can buy their sugar and they can buy your IP as long we agree to particular rules.Now Costa Rica may have put some rules on the United States... Perhaps we need to buy so many units minimum of Sugar...IP is not imaginary property or it is as imaginary as money is .
There is real value to such property , as creating it has an expense .
Not giving IP law part of a trade agreement would be stupid it would be like allowing a non-US country to print US Dollars to pay legally pay for its products.Lets put it an other way .
Lets say Costa Rica took GPL code and created a Closed Source application and began selling it across the world .
Costa Rica could just ignore FSF and all the other groups who may say you cant do that .
In reality it is n't a case to create a war... However by doing this they would be in violation of IP laws and the host country could restrict trade.It is not bullying or being evil .
It is about insuring we play by the agreed rules .
Selling Sugar to the United States keeps a lot of people in Costa Rica fed and alive .
Do you want to risk killing a major percentage of industry by breaking the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why these trade rules aren't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me.Because environmental concerns aren't part of the trade agreement.This of it this way...The United States cannot Create enough cane sugar to meets its demand.
However it does have a huge amount of valuable IP that it can sell.Costa Rica has more Cane Sugar then they need but there is a demand for IP.So you setup a trade agreement where you can buy their sugar and they can buy your IP as long we agree to particular rules.Now Costa Rica may have put some rules on the United States... Perhaps we need to buy so many units minimum of Sugar...IP is not imaginary property or it is as imaginary as money is.
There is real value to such property, as creating it has an expense.
Not giving IP law part of a trade agreement would be stupid it would be like allowing a non-US country to print US Dollars to pay legally pay for its products.Lets put it an other way.
Lets say Costa Rica took GPL code and created a Closed Source application and began selling it across the world.
Costa Rica could just ignore FSF and all the other groups who may say you cant do that.
In reality it isn't a case to create a war... However by doing this they would be in violation of IP laws and the host country could restrict trade.It is not bullying or being evil.
It is about insuring we play by the agreed rules.
Selling Sugar to the United States keeps a lot of people in Costa Rica fed and alive.
Do you want to risk killing a major percentage of industry by breaking the rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814074</id>
	<title>Not again?</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1263816960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This worked really well on Cuba, didn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This worked really well on Cuba , did n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This worked really well on Cuba, didn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814630</id>
	<title>Re:So that's how it works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263820680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women, <i> <b>then you get the real sugar<b><nobr> <wbr></nobr></b></b></i>.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In America , first you get the sugar , then you get the power , then you get the women , then you get the real sugar .Fixed that for you. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women,  then you get the real sugar .Fixed that for you..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817218</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1263894960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, democracy is not to have politicians at all. Democracy = demos (the people) is cratos (the state).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , democracy is not to have politicians at all .
Democracy = demos ( the people ) is cratos ( the state ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, democracy is not to have politicians at all.
Democracy = demos (the people) is cratos (the state).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815266</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1263826080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are apparently recent medical journal articles about liver problems from HFCS over and above the usual problems from obesity.  I'm no doctor so all I can do is point out a link to an interview with Dr Robert Lustig
(Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology - University of California)that explains what the situation appears to be:<br>
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm#" title="abc.net.au">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm#</a> [abc.net.au] <br>Sometimes it's better to get an adult point of view instead of press releases crafted by public relations companies.<br>Of course your point about eating too much is the main thing, but eating too much of some things is worse than eating too much of others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are apparently recent medical journal articles about liver problems from HFCS over and above the usual problems from obesity .
I 'm no doctor so all I can do is point out a link to an interview with Dr Robert Lustig ( Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology - University of California ) that explains what the situation appears to be : http : //www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm # [ abc.net.au ] Sometimes it 's better to get an adult point of view instead of press releases crafted by public relations companies.Of course your point about eating too much is the main thing , but eating too much of some things is worse than eating too much of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are apparently recent medical journal articles about liver problems from HFCS over and above the usual problems from obesity.
I'm no doctor so all I can do is point out a link to an interview with Dr Robert Lustig
(Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology - University of California)that explains what the situation appears to be:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm# [abc.net.au] Sometimes it's better to get an adult point of view instead of press releases crafted by public relations companies.Of course your point about eating too much is the main thing, but eating too much of some things is worse than eating too much of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811022</id>
	<title>Re:"IP La"</title>
	<author>Chad Birch</author>
	<datestamp>1263845220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently ScuttleMonkey is from Singapore or Hong Kong or something. <a href="http://www.asian-central.com/stuffasianpeoplelike/2008/08/06/87-lah/" title="asian-central.com">Stuff Asian People Like - #87 "Lah"</a> [asian-central.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently ScuttleMonkey is from Singapore or Hong Kong or something .
Stuff Asian People Like - # 87 " Lah " [ asian-central.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently ScuttleMonkey is from Singapore or Hong Kong or something.
Stuff Asian People Like - #87 "Lah" [asian-central.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813254</id>
	<title>Re:And so</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263812640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's being worked on.  Soon it will be</p><p>The government of the government<br>by the government<br>for the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's being worked on .
Soon it will beThe government of the governmentby the governmentfor the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's being worked on.
Soon it will beThe government of the governmentby the governmentfor the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810878</id>
	<title>Sugar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263844500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just me or if this comes to a standoff the US will lose? I seem to recall a story that US manufacturers of products like Chocolate Bars begging to increase import because they couldn't maintain quota with the amount of sugar available to them (through homeland growers &amp; laws limiting import). So when they try to block Costa Rican import for their arcane laws will they crack when major US corporations come knocking on their door demanding to know where their product is supposed to come from.<br> <br>
This story just shows how the government is run by lobbies who have the government push their agenda. I just hope it goes both ways where those who are effected by the import ban speak just as loud as the media corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or if this comes to a standoff the US will lose ?
I seem to recall a story that US manufacturers of products like Chocolate Bars begging to increase import because they could n't maintain quota with the amount of sugar available to them ( through homeland growers &amp; laws limiting import ) .
So when they try to block Costa Rican import for their arcane laws will they crack when major US corporations come knocking on their door demanding to know where their product is supposed to come from .
This story just shows how the government is run by lobbies who have the government push their agenda .
I just hope it goes both ways where those who are effected by the import ban speak just as loud as the media corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or if this comes to a standoff the US will lose?
I seem to recall a story that US manufacturers of products like Chocolate Bars begging to increase import because they couldn't maintain quota with the amount of sugar available to them (through homeland growers &amp; laws limiting import).
So when they try to block Costa Rican import for their arcane laws will they crack when major US corporations come knocking on their door demanding to know where their product is supposed to come from.
This story just shows how the government is run by lobbies who have the government push their agenda.
I just hope it goes both ways where those who are effected by the import ban speak just as loud as the media corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814654</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263820860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>US produces IP and wants to protect it.</p></div><p>US produces worthless bits of "IP" paper, Costa Rica produces a tradeable asset called sugar. Costa Rica can tell the US where they can shove their worthless bits of "IP" paper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>US produces IP and wants to protect it.US produces worthless bits of " IP " paper , Costa Rica produces a tradeable asset called sugar .
Costa Rica can tell the US where they can shove their worthless bits of " IP " paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US produces IP and wants to protect it.US produces worthless bits of "IP" paper, Costa Rica produces a tradeable asset called sugar.
Costa Rica can tell the US where they can shove their worthless bits of "IP" paper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817566</id>
	<title>Re:ip law is defunct</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1263900180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if obeying the US request means giving up taxes and tariffs gleaned from their sugar sales, and allowing Monsanto to contract to do all the farming? Good luck trying to keep Costa Rica as it's own entity after that happens!
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if obeying the US request means giving up taxes and tariffs gleaned from their sugar sales , and allowing Monsanto to contract to do all the farming ?
Good luck trying to keep Costa Rica as it 's own entity after that happens !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if obeying the US request means giving up taxes and tariffs gleaned from their sugar sales, and allowing Monsanto to contract to do all the farming?
Good luck trying to keep Costa Rica as it's own entity after that happens!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811304</id>
	<title>Ever been outside the us ?</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1263846600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like how any program you can imagine is available in Mexico City for $5.  I'm sure it is no different in the islands....

This just means more corn syrup for US !  Yea !</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how any program you can imagine is available in Mexico City for $ 5 .
I 'm sure it is no different in the islands... . This just means more corn syrup for US !
Yea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how any program you can imagine is available in Mexico City for $5.
I'm sure it is no different in the islands....

This just means more corn syrup for US !
Yea !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811318</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1263846660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You joke, but that was my reaction: "The US government is making my sugar more expensive?  Oh noes!  Maybe now I'll have to pay 205\% of the world market price for it instead of the usual 200!  And maybe 99\% of the crap we eat will be infested with HFCS instead of just 98\%.  What EVER will we do..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You joke , but that was my reaction : " The US government is making my sugar more expensive ?
Oh noes !
Maybe now I 'll have to pay 205 \ % of the world market price for it instead of the usual 200 !
And maybe 99 \ % of the crap we eat will be infested with HFCS instead of just 98 \ % .
What EVER will we do... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You joke, but that was my reaction: "The US government is making my sugar more expensive?
Oh noes!
Maybe now I'll have to pay 205\% of the world market price for it instead of the usual 200!
And maybe 99\% of the crap we eat will be infested with HFCS instead of just 98\%.
What EVER will we do..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811270</id>
	<title>Something's rotten in...</title>
	<author>lenzg</author>
	<datestamp>1263846480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider the following: Oscar Arias, current president of Costa Rica and the main politician behind CAFTA, owns the biggest sugar cane plantation in his country (called "Ingenio Taboga"). </p><p>this move by the US government was well planned since they are directly affecting the business of their "partner" in Costa Rica. US government could easily get away with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the following : Oscar Arias , current president of Costa Rica and the main politician behind CAFTA , owns the biggest sugar cane plantation in his country ( called " Ingenio Taboga " ) .
this move by the US government was well planned since they are directly affecting the business of their " partner " in Costa Rica .
US government could easily get away with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the following: Oscar Arias, current president of Costa Rica and the main politician behind CAFTA, owns the biggest sugar cane plantation in his country (called "Ingenio Taboga").
this move by the US government was well planned since they are directly affecting the business of their "partner" in Costa Rica.
US government could easily get away with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811446</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263847200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I suppose if you look at it that way, there's nothing wrong with it. Just like there's nothing wrong with, say, schoolyard bullying - if you don't want to be bullied, just suck up to the bully and play by his rules, so what's the problem?</p><p>The problem, of course, is that this sort of behavior, while perfectly understandable if you consider states (and people) to be entirely sociopathic egoists, driven only by the desire to get the biggest slice of cake for themselves at the expense of everyone else, simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny once you consider concepts like "freedom" or "democracy".</p><p>In fact, think about democracy. Don't you think that a nation's law should, ultimately, be set by its citizens? Just how this happens in practice may vary, but don't you see anything wrong with any nation forcing another nation to adopt certain laws against its wishes?</p><p>And if you don't, would you still not do so if the USA were at the receiving end? If China decided to that they didn't like this or that law in the USA, and tried to use economic pressure to strongarm the US government into passing it, over the resistance of the people, would you be OK with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I suppose if you look at it that way , there 's nothing wrong with it .
Just like there 's nothing wrong with , say , schoolyard bullying - if you do n't want to be bullied , just suck up to the bully and play by his rules , so what 's the problem ? The problem , of course , is that this sort of behavior , while perfectly understandable if you consider states ( and people ) to be entirely sociopathic egoists , driven only by the desire to get the biggest slice of cake for themselves at the expense of everyone else , simply does n't stand up to scrutiny once you consider concepts like " freedom " or " democracy " .In fact , think about democracy .
Do n't you think that a nation 's law should , ultimately , be set by its citizens ?
Just how this happens in practice may vary , but do n't you see anything wrong with any nation forcing another nation to adopt certain laws against its wishes ? And if you do n't , would you still not do so if the USA were at the receiving end ?
If China decided to that they did n't like this or that law in the USA , and tried to use economic pressure to strongarm the US government into passing it , over the resistance of the people , would you be OK with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I suppose if you look at it that way, there's nothing wrong with it.
Just like there's nothing wrong with, say, schoolyard bullying - if you don't want to be bullied, just suck up to the bully and play by his rules, so what's the problem?The problem, of course, is that this sort of behavior, while perfectly understandable if you consider states (and people) to be entirely sociopathic egoists, driven only by the desire to get the biggest slice of cake for themselves at the expense of everyone else, simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny once you consider concepts like "freedom" or "democracy".In fact, think about democracy.
Don't you think that a nation's law should, ultimately, be set by its citizens?
Just how this happens in practice may vary, but don't you see anything wrong with any nation forcing another nation to adopt certain laws against its wishes?And if you don't, would you still not do so if the USA were at the receiving end?
If China decided to that they didn't like this or that law in the USA, and tried to use economic pressure to strongarm the US government into passing it, over the resistance of the people, would you be OK with that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810996</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263845040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick, someone call Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic, NewsWeek, the UN and any other interested parties, Europe just got united to a country!</p><p>Seems like you've got the scoop of the millennia, congratulations sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , someone call Encyclopedia Britannica , National Geographic , NewsWeek , the UN and any other interested parties , Europe just got united to a country ! Seems like you 've got the scoop of the millennia , congratulations sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, someone call Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic, NewsWeek, the UN and any other interested parties, Europe just got united to a country!Seems like you've got the scoop of the millennia, congratulations sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811040</id>
	<title>Re:"Free" like I say</title>
	<author>camperslo</author>
	<datestamp>1263845340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Cuz increasingly that's all we have left. Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan.</i></p><p>Yes, with so many of the other things the U.S. has exported having been replaced by goods from China, it really shouldn't be unexpected to see heavy protection of an industry that generates major export income.</p><p>It's interesting to note that the Chinese appear to be suppressing Avatar which, while extremely popular, is effectively being ordered off the screens after a short run to make way for a local production.  They're doing it in a sneaky way by ordering that only the 3D version be shown, even though there's a very tiny percentage of theaters capable of showing in 3D.  The local film set to start is not a 3D film.</p><p><a href="http://www.danwei.org/rumors/avatar\_ousted\_for\_confucius.php" title="danwei.org">http://www.danwei.org/rumors/avatar\_ousted\_for\_confucius.php</a> [danwei.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuz increasingly that 's all we have left .
Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan.Yes , with so many of the other things the U.S. has exported having been replaced by goods from China , it really should n't be unexpected to see heavy protection of an industry that generates major export income.It 's interesting to note that the Chinese appear to be suppressing Avatar which , while extremely popular , is effectively being ordered off the screens after a short run to make way for a local production .
They 're doing it in a sneaky way by ordering that only the 3D version be shown , even though there 's a very tiny percentage of theaters capable of showing in 3D .
The local film set to start is not a 3D film.http : //www.danwei.org/rumors/avatar \ _ousted \ _for \ _confucius.php [ danwei.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuz increasingly that's all we have left.
Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan.Yes, with so many of the other things the U.S. has exported having been replaced by goods from China, it really shouldn't be unexpected to see heavy protection of an industry that generates major export income.It's interesting to note that the Chinese appear to be suppressing Avatar which, while extremely popular, is effectively being ordered off the screens after a short run to make way for a local production.
They're doing it in a sneaky way by ordering that only the 3D version be shown, even though there's a very tiny percentage of theaters capable of showing in 3D.
The local film set to start is not a 3D film.http://www.danwei.org/rumors/avatar\_ousted\_for\_confucius.php [danwei.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812714</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263809940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, the HFCS "scare" is blown way out of proportion. People are so fat nowadays primarily because they eat way too much. Period. HFCS may have a small connection with increased obesity, but not like our portions quintupling in size over the past forty years has.</p><p>You can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFCS#Health\_effects" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">decide for yourself</a> [wikipedia.org] whether HFCS is so much worse for you than cane sugar that it warrants incredulity at commercials for the product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the HFCS " scare " is blown way out of proportion .
People are so fat nowadays primarily because they eat way too much .
Period. HFCS may have a small connection with increased obesity , but not like our portions quintupling in size over the past forty years has.You can decide for yourself [ wikipedia.org ] whether HFCS is so much worse for you than cane sugar that it warrants incredulity at commercials for the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the HFCS "scare" is blown way out of proportion.
People are so fat nowadays primarily because they eat way too much.
Period. HFCS may have a small connection with increased obesity, but not like our portions quintupling in size over the past forty years has.You can decide for yourself [wikipedia.org] whether HFCS is so much worse for you than cane sugar that it warrants incredulity at commercials for the product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912</id>
	<title>Free trade not free property</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263844680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I believe I agree with you in general sentiment, that is that US IP laws are so long term and non permissive as to be more a hinderance to development than an incentive; the statement in the summary, quoted below makes no sense.<blockquote><div><p>I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism &mdash; the exact opposite of "free trade" &mdash; gets included in free trade agreements.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Intellectual property laws being uniform across a free trade so is REQUIRED for free trade of intellectual property and clearly not 'the exact opposite of free trade.'  If laws differed between member nations then one nation would be able to use intellectual property to manufacture their goods which was prohibited by other members thus creating an unfair advantage. This would be most dramatic if the intellectual property was produced in one nation under its laws then used without license by another nation to effectively eliminate the benefits of the intellectual property protects. These protections are for the creators not for the nations (thus not protectionist in the traditional sense). Free trade is to stop nations from creating safe havens for their producers by erecting unfair barriers to trade not to allow anyone to take whatever IP they want and use it as they see fit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I believe I agree with you in general sentiment , that is that US IP laws are so long term and non permissive as to be more a hinderance to development than an incentive ; the statement in the summary , quoted below makes no sense.I still can not understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism    the exact opposite of " free trade "    gets included in free trade agreements .
Intellectual property laws being uniform across a free trade so is REQUIRED for free trade of intellectual property and clearly not 'the exact opposite of free trade .
' If laws differed between member nations then one nation would be able to use intellectual property to manufacture their goods which was prohibited by other members thus creating an unfair advantage .
This would be most dramatic if the intellectual property was produced in one nation under its laws then used without license by another nation to effectively eliminate the benefits of the intellectual property protects .
These protections are for the creators not for the nations ( thus not protectionist in the traditional sense ) .
Free trade is to stop nations from creating safe havens for their producers by erecting unfair barriers to trade not to allow anyone to take whatever IP they want and use it as they see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I believe I agree with you in general sentiment, that is that US IP laws are so long term and non permissive as to be more a hinderance to development than an incentive; the statement in the summary, quoted below makes no sense.I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism — the exact opposite of "free trade" — gets included in free trade agreements.
Intellectual property laws being uniform across a free trade so is REQUIRED for free trade of intellectual property and clearly not 'the exact opposite of free trade.
'  If laws differed between member nations then one nation would be able to use intellectual property to manufacture their goods which was prohibited by other members thus creating an unfair advantage.
This would be most dramatic if the intellectual property was produced in one nation under its laws then used without license by another nation to effectively eliminate the benefits of the intellectual property protects.
These protections are for the creators not for the nations (thus not protectionist in the traditional sense).
Free trade is to stop nations from creating safe havens for their producers by erecting unfair barriers to trade not to allow anyone to take whatever IP they want and use it as they see fit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811948</id>
	<title>Why a link to a link to a link?</title>
	<author>BuckB</author>
	<datestamp>1263806220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't the generator of the original story (Adam Williams/TicoTimes.net) be slashdotted directly?
Wouldn't giving the originator credit for their story be correct?
Does the original author deserve the AdSense revenue for writing something interesting?
Isn't this a bit ironic for a story on IP?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the generator of the original story ( Adam Williams/TicoTimes.net ) be slashdotted directly ?
Would n't giving the originator credit for their story be correct ?
Does the original author deserve the AdSense revenue for writing something interesting ?
Is n't this a bit ironic for a story on IP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the generator of the original story (Adam Williams/TicoTimes.net) be slashdotted directly?
Wouldn't giving the originator credit for their story be correct?
Does the original author deserve the AdSense revenue for writing something interesting?
Isn't this a bit ironic for a story on IP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811532</id>
	<title>Re:Color me underwhelmed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US is shooting itself in the foot again, sugar is becoming less and less popular and the demand for healthier alternatives such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">stevia</a> [wikipedia.org] is growing. China happens to be the world's largest exporter of stevioside and Costa Rica could start growing stevia instead of sugar and exporting it to other global markets.</p><p>Coca Cola and Pepsi in the EU could import stevia from Costa Rica without breaking the US embargo.</p><p>It looks like globalization is gonna bite the US on the ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is shooting itself in the foot again , sugar is becoming less and less popular and the demand for healthier alternatives such as stevia [ wikipedia.org ] is growing .
China happens to be the world 's largest exporter of stevioside and Costa Rica could start growing stevia instead of sugar and exporting it to other global markets.Coca Cola and Pepsi in the EU could import stevia from Costa Rica without breaking the US embargo.It looks like globalization is gon na bite the US on the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is shooting itself in the foot again, sugar is becoming less and less popular and the demand for healthier alternatives such as stevia [wikipedia.org] is growing.
China happens to be the world's largest exporter of stevioside and Costa Rica could start growing stevia instead of sugar and exporting it to other global markets.Coca Cola and Pepsi in the EU could import stevia from Costa Rica without breaking the US embargo.It looks like globalization is gonna bite the US on the ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811830</id>
	<title>Will this?</title>
	<author>Derosian</author>
	<datestamp>1263805740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open up a whole new trade in sugar smuggling?  I hope so just for the comedic benefit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open up a whole new trade in sugar smuggling ?
I hope so just for the comedic benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open up a whole new trade in sugar smuggling?
I hope so just for the comedic benefit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816522</id>
	<title>Anti-CAFTA/TLC graffiti</title>
	<author>bludwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1263842460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was an active anti-TLC (CAFTA in Spanish) movement in San Jose, Costa Rica when I was there in 2008, you can see some evidence of their work here:</p><p><a href="http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205081.jpg" title="bylandandsea.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205081.jpg</a> [bylandandsea.org]<br><a href="http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205089.jpg" title="bylandandsea.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205089.jpg</a> [bylandandsea.org]<br><a href="http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205107.jpg" title="bylandandsea.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205107.jpg</a> [bylandandsea.org]<br><a href="http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205128.jpg" title="bylandandsea.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205128.jpg</a> [bylandandsea.org]<br><a href="http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205132.jpg" title="bylandandsea.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205132.jpg</a> [bylandandsea.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an active anti-TLC ( CAFTA in Spanish ) movement in San Jose , Costa Rica when I was there in 2008 , you can see some evidence of their work here : http : //www.bylandandsea.org : 8080/05.31.2008/BLaS \ % 20- \ % 205081.jpg [ bylandandsea.org ] http : //www.bylandandsea.org : 8080/05.31.2008/BLaS \ % 20- \ % 205089.jpg [ bylandandsea.org ] http : //www.bylandandsea.org : 8080/05.31.2008/BLaS \ % 20- \ % 205107.jpg [ bylandandsea.org ] http : //www.bylandandsea.org : 8080/05.31.2008/BLaS \ % 20- \ % 205128.jpg [ bylandandsea.org ] http : //www.bylandandsea.org : 8080/05.31.2008/BLaS \ % 20- \ % 205132.jpg [ bylandandsea.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an active anti-TLC (CAFTA in Spanish) movement in San Jose, Costa Rica when I was there in 2008, you can see some evidence of their work here:http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205081.jpg [bylandandsea.org]http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205089.jpg [bylandandsea.org]http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205107.jpg [bylandandsea.org]http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205128.jpg [bylandandsea.org]http://www.bylandandsea.org:8080/05.31.2008/BLaS\%20-\%205132.jpg [bylandandsea.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821386</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade not free property</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1263926160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..which may make sense if they were selling Oakley sunglasses, but no one owns a patent on sugar, and buying a harvester doesn't change unless they are making their own from our patents (I doubt that's the concern). So it becomes a simple misplaced punishment bringing farmers into manufacturer's discussions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..which may make sense if they were selling Oakley sunglasses , but no one owns a patent on sugar , and buying a harvester does n't change unless they are making their own from our patents ( I doubt that 's the concern ) .
So it becomes a simple misplaced punishment bringing farmers into manufacturer 's discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..which may make sense if they were selling Oakley sunglasses, but no one owns a patent on sugar, and buying a harvester doesn't change unless they are making their own from our patents (I doubt that's the concern).
So it becomes a simple misplaced punishment bringing farmers into manufacturer's discussions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811556</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1263847680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course nobody did, and it's not your fault. But that doesn't mean you can stand rested with your arms crossed now. Democracy is about breathing in the necks of the politicians EVERY SINGLE DAY, cause the day you don't do it, things like these happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course nobody did , and it 's not your fault .
But that does n't mean you can stand rested with your arms crossed now .
Democracy is about breathing in the necks of the politicians EVERY SINGLE DAY , cause the day you do n't do it , things like these happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course nobody did, and it's not your fault.
But that doesn't mean you can stand rested with your arms crossed now.
Democracy is about breathing in the necks of the politicians EVERY SINGLE DAY, cause the day you don't do it, things like these happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811358</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"countries like Europe and America (and others)." Hey, Europe and America are not countries. But I agree with you on the rest. This world is no longer ruled by countries but by companies instead. It's all about misdirection. That's what patriotism is all about, let's fight against countries!!! Ohh, BIG CORPORATIONS!  Not a problem; they belong to my country. Yeaaahhh righhht<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" countries like Europe and America ( and others ) .
" Hey , Europe and America are not countries .
But I agree with you on the rest .
This world is no longer ruled by countries but by companies instead .
It 's all about misdirection .
That 's what patriotism is all about , let 's fight against countries ! ! !
Ohh , BIG CORPORATIONS !
Not a problem ; they belong to my country .
Yeaaahhh righhht : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"countries like Europe and America (and others).
" Hey, Europe and America are not countries.
But I agree with you on the rest.
This world is no longer ruled by countries but by companies instead.
It's all about misdirection.
That's what patriotism is all about, let's fight against countries!!!
Ohh, BIG CORPORATIONS!
Not a problem; they belong to my country.
Yeaaahhh righhht :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811700</id>
	<title>Re:Color me underwhelmed.</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1263805200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite a bit longer than 150 years, and usually we push them around by military means as much as economic. Hence our repeated invasions of most of the countries in Latin America, as well as not infrequent support of coup attempts.</p><p>As Maj Gen Smedley Butler put it back in the 1930's, when this sort of thing was in full swing:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.</p></div><p>It's history like that, by the way, that makes accusations that the US supported the coup against Hugo Chavez carry significant weight (whether true or not).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite a bit longer than 150 years , and usually we push them around by military means as much as economic .
Hence our repeated invasions of most of the countries in Latin America , as well as not infrequent support of coup attempts.As Maj Gen Smedley Butler put it back in the 1930 's , when this sort of thing was in full swing : I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business , for Wall Street and the bankers .
In short , I was a racketeer , a gangster for capitalism .
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914 .
I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in .
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street .
I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912 .
I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916 .
I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903 .
In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested .
Looking back on it , I might have given Al Capone a few hints .
The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts .
I operated on three continents.It 's history like that , by the way , that makes accusations that the US supported the coup against Hugo Chavez carry significant weight ( whether true or not ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite a bit longer than 150 years, and usually we push them around by military means as much as economic.
Hence our repeated invasions of most of the countries in Latin America, as well as not infrequent support of coup attempts.As Maj Gen Smedley Butler put it back in the 1930's, when this sort of thing was in full swing:I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914.
I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912.
I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.
I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903.
In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.
Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.
The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts.
I operated on three continents.It's history like that, by the way, that makes accusations that the US supported the coup against Hugo Chavez carry significant weight (whether true or not).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815342</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263826920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sucrase enzyme is the key.   The body uses it to regulate the amount of glucose and fructose in the blook.   When you consumed it floods the bloodstream with glucose and fructose.  Being  a diabetic I believe that to be VERY BAD KARMA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sucrase enzyme is the key .
The body uses it to regulate the amount of glucose and fructose in the blook .
When you consumed it floods the bloodstream with glucose and fructose .
Being a diabetic I believe that to be VERY BAD KARMA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sucrase enzyme is the key.
The body uses it to regulate the amount of glucose and fructose in the blook.
When you consumed it floods the bloodstream with glucose and fructose.
Being  a diabetic I believe that to be VERY BAD KARMA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812346</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom is simple, CAFTA is not</title>
	<author>BuckB</author>
	<datestamp>1263807960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And when Costa Rica becomes a state, sharing in the national debt and under the IP laws of the US, then they can sell their sugar to Montana.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when Costa Rica becomes a state , sharing in the national debt and under the IP laws of the US , then they can sell their sugar to Montana .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when Costa Rica becomes a state, sharing in the national debt and under the IP laws of the US, then they can sell their sugar to Montana.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812768</id>
	<title>Re:Color me underwhelmed.</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1263810240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, its been that way since the dawn of recorded time. You know why? Because thats the way it works, the big guy sets the rules. This is nothing new. This is nothing unique to America. It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.</p></div><p>You are either ignorant of or purposely choosing to ignore the long and storied history of colonialism and imperialism's effect on South America.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just figuring this out now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... did you bother to go to your high school history class?</p></div><p>Oh the irony.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , its been that way since the dawn of recorded time .
You know why ?
Because thats the way it works , the big guy sets the rules .
This is nothing new .
This is nothing unique to America .
It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.You are either ignorant of or purposely choosing to ignore the long and storied history of colonialism and imperialism 's effect on South America.Just figuring this out now ... did you bother to go to your high school history class ? Oh the irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, its been that way since the dawn of recorded time.
You know why?
Because thats the way it works, the big guy sets the rules.
This is nothing new.
This is nothing unique to America.
It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.You are either ignorant of or purposely choosing to ignore the long and storied history of colonialism and imperialism's effect on South America.Just figuring this out now ... did you bother to go to your high school history class?Oh the irony.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811888</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263806040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You want to trade with the US you should play by US rules</p></div><p>Normally, I'm one of the staunchest supporters of "don't like the rules, don't interact with them". Here, however, the US is one of the largest buyers of sugar in the world. The US is in a position of economic power and it's bullying everyone else to maintain that position. Costa Rica is, thus, a victim of international antitrust.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to trade with the US you should play by US rulesNormally , I 'm one of the staunchest supporters of " do n't like the rules , do n't interact with them " .
Here , however , the US is one of the largest buyers of sugar in the world .
The US is in a position of economic power and it 's bullying everyone else to maintain that position .
Costa Rica is , thus , a victim of international antitrust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to trade with the US you should play by US rulesNormally, I'm one of the staunchest supporters of "don't like the rules, don't interact with them".
Here, however, the US is one of the largest buyers of sugar in the world.
The US is in a position of economic power and it's bullying everyone else to maintain that position.
Costa Rica is, thus, a victim of international antitrust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811748</id>
	<title>If only that were true.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263805440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>. Historically, countries like Europe and America (and others) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles, and enforcing them on others.</i></p><p>By what? Asking for a middle class?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
Historically , countries like Europe and America ( and others ) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles , and enforcing them on others.By what ?
Asking for a middle class ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
Historically, countries like Europe and America (and others) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles, and enforcing them on others.By what?
Asking for a middle class?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816764</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>forth: corn is genetically modified, with no way to know what is does to you on the long term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>forth : corn is genetically modified , with no way to know what is does to you on the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>forth: corn is genetically modified, with no way to know what is does to you on the long term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816474</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure what the big deal is ...</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1263841740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sugar is $75 per kilogram in the US?   Better tell my local grocery store because I can buy over 2 kilograms (5 pound bag) for about <a href="http://www99.shopping.com/xPO-Domino\_5lb\_Bag\_of\_Sugar" title="shopping.com" rel="nofollow">seven dollars.</a> [shopping.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sugar is $ 75 per kilogram in the US ?
Better tell my local grocery store because I can buy over 2 kilograms ( 5 pound bag ) for about seven dollars .
[ shopping.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sugar is $75 per kilogram in the US?
Better tell my local grocery store because I can buy over 2 kilograms (5 pound bag) for about seven dollars.
[shopping.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813344</id>
	<title>Re:Just because they were paranoid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263813060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy crap!  They have deep fried butter now?!  Where can I get some?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy crap !
They have deep fried butter now ? !
Where can I get some ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy crap!
They have deep fried butter now?!
Where can I get some?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811092</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>nawitus</author>
	<datestamp>1263845580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You see nothing wrong in a superpower bullying a small country through economic means? Well, that certainly sounds like an American way to do things, i.e. acting like an asshole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You see nothing wrong in a superpower bullying a small country through economic means ?
Well , that certainly sounds like an American way to do things , i.e .
acting like an asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see nothing wrong in a superpower bullying a small country through economic means?
Well, that certainly sounds like an American way to do things, i.e.
acting like an asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811518</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Historically as trade becomes more free, all have benefited, especially in the long run.  Do you really think it was tariffs that made America rich, and not the vast fertile land, plentiful resources, and relative stability?<br> <br>
Surely you see the benefits of trade: you have something you don't need, but I want; and I have something I don't need, and you want.  We trade, and both are better off.  A tariff is an attempt from the government to scoop into this cash flow and make a bit extra on the side.  It can't scoop too deeply, otherwise the trade will stop, so it has to calibrate it correctly, and a tariff of zero is going to give the maximum benefit to both sides of the trade agreement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically as trade becomes more free , all have benefited , especially in the long run .
Do you really think it was tariffs that made America rich , and not the vast fertile land , plentiful resources , and relative stability ?
Surely you see the benefits of trade : you have something you do n't need , but I want ; and I have something I do n't need , and you want .
We trade , and both are better off .
A tariff is an attempt from the government to scoop into this cash flow and make a bit extra on the side .
It ca n't scoop too deeply , otherwise the trade will stop , so it has to calibrate it correctly , and a tariff of zero is going to give the maximum benefit to both sides of the trade agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically as trade becomes more free, all have benefited, especially in the long run.
Do you really think it was tariffs that made America rich, and not the vast fertile land, plentiful resources, and relative stability?
Surely you see the benefits of trade: you have something you don't need, but I want; and I have something I don't need, and you want.
We trade, and both are better off.
A tariff is an attempt from the government to scoop into this cash flow and make a bit extra on the side.
It can't scoop too deeply, otherwise the trade will stop, so it has to calibrate it correctly, and a tariff of zero is going to give the maximum benefit to both sides of the trade agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810808</id>
	<title>In America</title>
	<author>Njoyda Sauce</author>
	<datestamp>1263844080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) you get the sugar<br>2) you get the power<br>3) you get the women</p><p>No rules have been defined outside of the US it seems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) you get the sugar2 ) you get the power3 ) you get the womenNo rules have been defined outside of the US it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) you get the sugar2) you get the power3) you get the womenNo rules have been defined outside of the US it seems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812448</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom is simple, CAFTA is not</title>
	<author>Vengeful weenie</author>
	<datestamp>1263808620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want to see a real free trade agreement, you need look no further than our own constitution:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Article I, Section 9.  No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.</p></div><p>That's it.  In contrast CAFTA is 3700 pages long.  NAFTA is 2000 pages long.  These agreements do not give freedom, they take it away.</p></div><p>The best reply in a sea of rants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to see a real free trade agreement , you need look no further than our own constitution : Article I , Section 9 .
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state .
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another : nor shall vessels bound to , or from , one state , be obliged to enter , clear or pay duties in another.That 's it .
In contrast CAFTA is 3700 pages long .
NAFTA is 2000 pages long .
These agreements do not give freedom , they take it away.The best reply in a sea of rants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to see a real free trade agreement, you need look no further than our own constitution:Article I, Section 9.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.That's it.
In contrast CAFTA is 3700 pages long.
NAFTA is 2000 pages long.
These agreements do not give freedom, they take it away.The best reply in a sea of rants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810918</id>
	<title>Free as in Freedom, not as in free beer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263844740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism -- the exact opposite of "free trade" -- gets included in free trade agreements.</p></div><p>Because the US is trading the right for access to the US physical goods market against acceptance of the US's concept of Intellectual Property.<br>And that is because Intellectual Property is all the US has going for it nowadays.</p><p>And it is "Free" as in Freedom, not as in Free beer. You are free to trade in goods and IP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still can not understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism -- the exact opposite of " free trade " -- gets included in free trade agreements.Because the US is trading the right for access to the US physical goods market against acceptance of the US 's concept of Intellectual Property.And that is because Intellectual Property is all the US has going for it nowadays.And it is " Free " as in Freedom , not as in Free beer .
You are free to trade in goods and IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism -- the exact opposite of "free trade" -- gets included in free trade agreements.Because the US is trading the right for access to the US physical goods market against acceptance of the US's concept of Intellectual Property.And that is because Intellectual Property is all the US has going for it nowadays.And it is "Free" as in Freedom, not as in Free beer.
You are free to trade in goods and IP.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811386</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade not free property</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1263846960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Intellectual property laws being uniform across a free trade so is REQUIRED for free trade of intellectual property and clearly not 'the exact opposite of free trade</i></p><p>sure, so the USA should accept the Costa Rican IP laws and be made to implement them. Why should it be the other way round?</p><p>The problem is that the US laws are so corrupt that no-one, even in America, wants them (except the vested interest groups like the RIAA)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intellectual property laws being uniform across a free trade so is REQUIRED for free trade of intellectual property and clearly not 'the exact opposite of free tradesure , so the USA should accept the Costa Rican IP laws and be made to implement them .
Why should it be the other way round ? The problem is that the US laws are so corrupt that no-one , even in America , wants them ( except the vested interest groups like the RIAA )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intellectual property laws being uniform across a free trade so is REQUIRED for free trade of intellectual property and clearly not 'the exact opposite of free tradesure, so the USA should accept the Costa Rican IP laws and be made to implement them.
Why should it be the other way round?The problem is that the US laws are so corrupt that no-one, even in America, wants them (except the vested interest groups like the RIAA)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811570</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263847740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>0 if you exclude the representatives themselves.</p><p>You might think you know their views, but thats just an example of ignorance.  They are politicians, their only view is of money and power, and their 'views' will be whatever it takes to get the most money and power possible.  They change every second of every day.</p><p>You're here to preach about it and pretend YOU KNOW who you voted for when in reality your just as ignorant as the people who go to vote and just mark the single checkbox for the donkey or the elephant.</p><p>You're just as ignorant as the people you're trying to call ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>0 if you exclude the representatives themselves.You might think you know their views , but thats just an example of ignorance .
They are politicians , their only view is of money and power , and their 'views ' will be whatever it takes to get the most money and power possible .
They change every second of every day.You 're here to preach about it and pretend YOU KNOW who you voted for when in reality your just as ignorant as the people who go to vote and just mark the single checkbox for the donkey or the elephant.You 're just as ignorant as the people you 're trying to call ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0 if you exclude the representatives themselves.You might think you know their views, but thats just an example of ignorance.
They are politicians, their only view is of money and power, and their 'views' will be whatever it takes to get the most money and power possible.
They change every second of every day.You're here to preach about it and pretend YOU KNOW who you voted for when in reality your just as ignorant as the people who go to vote and just mark the single checkbox for the donkey or the elephant.You're just as ignorant as the people you're trying to call ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811372</id>
	<title>Re:Sugar middlemen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd suspect Mexico would already have this covered if Costa Rica wants to do the business. I've seen plenty of candy and sugary beverages from Mexico, varying from Mexican Coca Cola (Made with real sugar!) to other more exotic brands. And this is in a major grocery store in the midwest, it's not like I went to some ethnic specialty store. So they'd have no problem getting the sugar over here. Besides they're quite sucessful at moving much more illicit goods from elsewhere in South and Central America, so what would make them think that moving (contraband?) sugar would be any harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd suspect Mexico would already have this covered if Costa Rica wants to do the business .
I 've seen plenty of candy and sugary beverages from Mexico , varying from Mexican Coca Cola ( Made with real sugar !
) to other more exotic brands .
And this is in a major grocery store in the midwest , it 's not like I went to some ethnic specialty store .
So they 'd have no problem getting the sugar over here .
Besides they 're quite sucessful at moving much more illicit goods from elsewhere in South and Central America , so what would make them think that moving ( contraband ?
) sugar would be any harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd suspect Mexico would already have this covered if Costa Rica wants to do the business.
I've seen plenty of candy and sugary beverages from Mexico, varying from Mexican Coca Cola (Made with real sugar!
) to other more exotic brands.
And this is in a major grocery store in the midwest, it's not like I went to some ethnic specialty store.
So they'd have no problem getting the sugar over here.
Besides they're quite sucessful at moving much more illicit goods from elsewhere in South and Central America, so what would make them think that moving (contraband?
) sugar would be any harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811606</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1263847920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other day, over a Mexican Coca Cola (real sugar), I said
to my companion something along the lines of "drink up, this is
the ONLY benefit of Free Trade for the common man".</p><p>The US has done everything to make real sugar more expensive,
shoving all the HFCS at us.  Mexican Coca Cola via NAFTA really
is the only tangible benefit I can think of from all this Free Trade
multinational corporate nonsense.  And if you think about it, it's
not really a benefit at all since before the corn lobby captured
Congress, we used to mix up Coca Cola with real sugar on THIS side
of the border.</p><p>So.  I stand corrected.  Still no real benefit to the current
Free Trade regime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other day , over a Mexican Coca Cola ( real sugar ) , I said to my companion something along the lines of " drink up , this is the ONLY benefit of Free Trade for the common man " .The US has done everything to make real sugar more expensive , shoving all the HFCS at us .
Mexican Coca Cola via NAFTA really is the only tangible benefit I can think of from all this Free Trade multinational corporate nonsense .
And if you think about it , it 's not really a benefit at all since before the corn lobby captured Congress , we used to mix up Coca Cola with real sugar on THIS side of the border.So .
I stand corrected .
Still no real benefit to the current Free Trade regime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other day, over a Mexican Coca Cola (real sugar), I said
to my companion something along the lines of "drink up, this is
the ONLY benefit of Free Trade for the common man".The US has done everything to make real sugar more expensive,
shoving all the HFCS at us.
Mexican Coca Cola via NAFTA really
is the only tangible benefit I can think of from all this Free Trade
multinational corporate nonsense.
And if you think about it, it's
not really a benefit at all since before the corn lobby captured
Congress, we used to mix up Coca Cola with real sugar on THIS side
of the border.So.
I stand corrected.
Still no real benefit to the current
Free Trade regime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812936</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom is simple, CAFTA is not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263810960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and free trade is BS, it's bad for America.  America should always make deals that favor us or not make the deal at all.  Life is not fair and never will be.  It's not how you play the game it's if you win or lose, and that's how all winner roll.  If you were a winner you would know this yourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and free trade is BS , it 's bad for America .
America should always make deals that favor us or not make the deal at all .
Life is not fair and never will be .
It 's not how you play the game it 's if you win or lose , and that 's how all winner roll .
If you were a winner you would know this yourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and free trade is BS, it's bad for America.
America should always make deals that favor us or not make the deal at all.
Life is not fair and never will be.
It's not how you play the game it's if you win or lose, and that's how all winner roll.
If you were a winner you would know this yourselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</id>
	<title>Free trade</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263844440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism &mdash; the exact opposite of "free trade" &mdash; gets included in free trade agreements.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You misunderstand the meaning of free trade/the free market. It's free as in free for the more advanced economies, but not for the rest. Historically, countries like Europe and America (and others) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles, and enforcing them on others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still can not understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism    the exact opposite of " free trade "    gets included in free trade agreements .
You misunderstand the meaning of free trade/the free market .
It 's free as in free for the more advanced economies , but not for the rest .
Historically , countries like Europe and America ( and others ) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles , and enforcing them on others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism — the exact opposite of "free trade" — gets included in free trade agreements.
You misunderstand the meaning of free trade/the free market.
It's free as in free for the more advanced economies, but not for the rest.
Historically, countries like Europe and America (and others) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles, and enforcing them on others.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821934</id>
	<title>Re:Color me underwhelmed.</title>
	<author>AntiDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263928440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right.  But why should that stop peopel from being outraged?  Should we stop trying to fight against something just because it's gone on for a long time? How long is that then? 5 years? 10 years? 100?</p><p>I understand your sentiment but encouraging apathy has never ended well for the public at large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
But why should that stop peopel from being outraged ?
Should we stop trying to fight against something just because it 's gone on for a long time ?
How long is that then ?
5 years ?
10 years ?
100 ? I understand your sentiment but encouraging apathy has never ended well for the public at large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
But why should that stop peopel from being outraged?
Should we stop trying to fight against something just because it's gone on for a long time?
How long is that then?
5 years?
10 years?
100?I understand your sentiment but encouraging apathy has never ended well for the public at large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814100</id>
	<title>Costa Rica</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263817080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've lived in Costa Rica. Pura Vida!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture\_of\_Costa\_Rica<br>I've eaten sugar directly from the cane. Don't swallow the fiber.<br>Most of what Costa Rica exports are bananas, pineapples, coffee and microprocessors.</p><p>Tourism brings more money to Costa Rica than b-p-c combined.</p><p>While there, the teens I knew were all trying to get jobs with HP, Intel, Oracle, etc. or to work in an call center.</p><p>The Tico Times hasn't reported this story, that I've seen. This is the closest story <a href="http://www.ticotimes.net/businessarchive/2010\_01/011510.htm" title="ticotimes.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.ticotimes.net/businessarchive/2010\_01/011510.htm</a> [ticotimes.net] That story did say that sugar export profits rose over 77\% due to CAFTA although almost all other exports are down 30+\% due to global economic conditions. Interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've lived in Costa Rica .
Pura Vida ! http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture \ _of \ _Costa \ _RicaI 've eaten sugar directly from the cane .
Do n't swallow the fiber.Most of what Costa Rica exports are bananas , pineapples , coffee and microprocessors.Tourism brings more money to Costa Rica than b-p-c combined.While there , the teens I knew were all trying to get jobs with HP , Intel , Oracle , etc .
or to work in an call center.The Tico Times has n't reported this story , that I 've seen .
This is the closest story http : //www.ticotimes.net/businessarchive/2010 \ _01/011510.htm [ ticotimes.net ] That story did say that sugar export profits rose over 77 \ % due to CAFTA although almost all other exports are down 30 + \ % due to global economic conditions .
Interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've lived in Costa Rica.
Pura Vida!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture\_of\_Costa\_RicaI've eaten sugar directly from the cane.
Don't swallow the fiber.Most of what Costa Rica exports are bananas, pineapples, coffee and microprocessors.Tourism brings more money to Costa Rica than b-p-c combined.While there, the teens I knew were all trying to get jobs with HP, Intel, Oracle, etc.
or to work in an call center.The Tico Times hasn't reported this story, that I've seen.
This is the closest story http://www.ticotimes.net/businessarchive/2010\_01/011510.htm [ticotimes.net] That story did say that sugar export profits rose over 77\% due to CAFTA although almost all other exports are down 30+\% due to global economic conditions.
Interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811310</id>
	<title>IP Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Government of the United States of America is a whore to corporate interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government of the United States of America is a whore to corporate interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government of the United States of America is a whore to corporate interests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234</id>
	<title>Re:Color me underwhelmed.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263846360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, its been that way since the dawn of recorded time.  You know why? Because thats the way it works, the big guy sets the rules.  This is nothing new.  This is nothing unique to America.  It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.</p><p>Just figuring this out now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... did you bother to go to your high school history class?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , its been that way since the dawn of recorded time .
You know why ?
Because thats the way it works , the big guy sets the rules .
This is nothing new .
This is nothing unique to America .
It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.Just figuring this out now ... did you bother to go to your high school history class ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, its been that way since the dawn of recorded time.
You know why?
Because thats the way it works, the big guy sets the rules.
This is nothing new.
This is nothing unique to America.
It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.Just figuring this out now ... did you bother to go to your high school history class?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812158</id>
	<title>Anti-IP Liberal Thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263807180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the U.S. is doing is perfectly reasonable.  The products that the U.S. makes (intellectual property) can easily be copied by third parties.  Sugar cannot.  So it is only fair to maket them agree not to steal our product before we buy theirs.  I think that is perfectly reasonable.</p><p>All the anger I see on this thread is more directed at the concept of IP protection itself, rather than this particular move.  And while you may disagree with the terms of some of the protections (for example, I think copyright is too long), you have to admit that most people won't create scientific inventions, or even creative works, if they know they can't get paid for it. It sucks, but that's human nature.</p><p>A lot of people have argued that forcing IP laws on developing countries is evil, but what we are actually doing is forcing them to update their economy before they want to; you can't have a modern advanced economy without IP laws (and if you think China is a modern economy, I'm not arguing with you).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the U.S. is doing is perfectly reasonable .
The products that the U.S. makes ( intellectual property ) can easily be copied by third parties .
Sugar can not .
So it is only fair to maket them agree not to steal our product before we buy theirs .
I think that is perfectly reasonable.All the anger I see on this thread is more directed at the concept of IP protection itself , rather than this particular move .
And while you may disagree with the terms of some of the protections ( for example , I think copyright is too long ) , you have to admit that most people wo n't create scientific inventions , or even creative works , if they know they ca n't get paid for it .
It sucks , but that 's human nature.A lot of people have argued that forcing IP laws on developing countries is evil , but what we are actually doing is forcing them to update their economy before they want to ; you ca n't have a modern advanced economy without IP laws ( and if you think China is a modern economy , I 'm not arguing with you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the U.S. is doing is perfectly reasonable.
The products that the U.S. makes (intellectual property) can easily be copied by third parties.
Sugar cannot.
So it is only fair to maket them agree not to steal our product before we buy theirs.
I think that is perfectly reasonable.All the anger I see on this thread is more directed at the concept of IP protection itself, rather than this particular move.
And while you may disagree with the terms of some of the protections (for example, I think copyright is too long), you have to admit that most people won't create scientific inventions, or even creative works, if they know they can't get paid for it.
It sucks, but that's human nature.A lot of people have argued that forcing IP laws on developing countries is evil, but what we are actually doing is forcing them to update their economy before they want to; you can't have a modern advanced economy without IP laws (and if you think China is a modern economy, I'm not arguing with you).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814216</id>
	<title>Re:Color me underwhelmed.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1263817680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, its been that way since the dawn of recorded time.</p> </div><p>That's impossible, since the USA has not existed since the dawn of recorded time.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.</p></div><p>If the US is no longer important, how would it have the power to push around Central America?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just figuring this out now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... did you bother to go to your high school history class?</p></div><p>Did you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , its been that way since the dawn of recorded time .
That 's impossible , since the USA has not existed since the dawn of recorded time .
It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.If the US is no longer important , how would it have the power to push around Central America ? Just figuring this out now ... did you bother to go to your high school history class ? Did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, its been that way since the dawn of recorded time.
That's impossible, since the USA has not existed since the dawn of recorded time.
It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.If the US is no longer important, how would it have the power to push around Central America?Just figuring this out now ... did you bother to go to your high school history class?Did you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811442</id>
	<title>ip law is defunct</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263847200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its a direct, unavoidable consequence of the rise of the internet</p><p>ip laws only make sense when they are a gentleman's agreement among a handful of publishers. they are completely unenforceable when every teenager in his basement is a publisher to anyone else at zero cost, for anything you want</p><p>the wise thing for costa rica to do is simply agree to whatever the usa demands ip law wise. and then its business as usual. which is: everything is available with no ip restrictions to anyone remotely familiar with a computer console</p><p>enforcement is impossible, even for the usa within its own borders, so who fucking cares what the lawyers and bureaucrats and corporations say? they've already been routed around</p><p>i'm not saying you shouldn't get upset at the arrogance and the audacity of the american demands, i'm saying a bully making demands without any actual ability to follow through on his threats is nothing you have to pay any respect to</p><p>you simply pay the asshole lip service, put a big smile on your face, say "yes" to whatever the asshole wants, and then its business as usual, which is: ip laws mean nothing. all of the posturing and threats and demands mean nothing. there's NO ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLE</p><p>
&nbsp; let all the corporate lawyers, midlevel bureaucrats amd other pointless yammering meat popsicles create all the ip laws and agreements they want</p><p>WHO FUCKING CARES. they can't enforce any of it. its the internet age. this is not vhs copy machines in a warehouse or cd duplicators in the closet. you can't shut down the internet</p><p>people: stop getting upset at these retards trying to enforce laws from a previous technological era and just igore them and their petty demands without any muscle behind them. they can't stop technological change. they are defunct, they just don't know it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its a direct , unavoidable consequence of the rise of the internetip laws only make sense when they are a gentleman 's agreement among a handful of publishers .
they are completely unenforceable when every teenager in his basement is a publisher to anyone else at zero cost , for anything you wantthe wise thing for costa rica to do is simply agree to whatever the usa demands ip law wise .
and then its business as usual .
which is : everything is available with no ip restrictions to anyone remotely familiar with a computer consoleenforcement is impossible , even for the usa within its own borders , so who fucking cares what the lawyers and bureaucrats and corporations say ?
they 've already been routed aroundi 'm not saying you should n't get upset at the arrogance and the audacity of the american demands , i 'm saying a bully making demands without any actual ability to follow through on his threats is nothing you have to pay any respect toyou simply pay the asshole lip service , put a big smile on your face , say " yes " to whatever the asshole wants , and then its business as usual , which is : ip laws mean nothing .
all of the posturing and threats and demands mean nothing .
there 's NO ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLE   let all the corporate lawyers , midlevel bureaucrats amd other pointless yammering meat popsicles create all the ip laws and agreements they wantWHO FUCKING CARES .
they ca n't enforce any of it .
its the internet age .
this is not vhs copy machines in a warehouse or cd duplicators in the closet .
you ca n't shut down the internetpeople : stop getting upset at these retards trying to enforce laws from a previous technological era and just igore them and their petty demands without any muscle behind them .
they ca n't stop technological change .
they are defunct , they just do n't know it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its a direct, unavoidable consequence of the rise of the internetip laws only make sense when they are a gentleman's agreement among a handful of publishers.
they are completely unenforceable when every teenager in his basement is a publisher to anyone else at zero cost, for anything you wantthe wise thing for costa rica to do is simply agree to whatever the usa demands ip law wise.
and then its business as usual.
which is: everything is available with no ip restrictions to anyone remotely familiar with a computer consoleenforcement is impossible, even for the usa within its own borders, so who fucking cares what the lawyers and bureaucrats and corporations say?
they've already been routed aroundi'm not saying you shouldn't get upset at the arrogance and the audacity of the american demands, i'm saying a bully making demands without any actual ability to follow through on his threats is nothing you have to pay any respect toyou simply pay the asshole lip service, put a big smile on your face, say "yes" to whatever the asshole wants, and then its business as usual, which is: ip laws mean nothing.
all of the posturing and threats and demands mean nothing.
there's NO ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLE
  let all the corporate lawyers, midlevel bureaucrats amd other pointless yammering meat popsicles create all the ip laws and agreements they wantWHO FUCKING CARES.
they can't enforce any of it.
its the internet age.
this is not vhs copy machines in a warehouse or cd duplicators in the closet.
you can't shut down the internetpeople: stop getting upset at these retards trying to enforce laws from a previous technological era and just igore them and their petty demands without any muscle behind them.
they can't stop technological change.
they are defunct, they just don't know it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813030</id>
	<title>Value added</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1263811500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they don't like the deal, then they shouldn't take it (and I wouldn't blame them either). They could take their really cheap sugar and make it a value added more lucrative product by turning it into ethanol fuel, like Brazil does, for instance. Or repurpose the extra sugar cane fields into another valuable food crop, rice maybe? Probably any number of good crops can be grown in that sort of soil.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I don't think Costa Rica has much of anything for a domestic oil supply, it's all imported, so making their own fuel makes more economic sense for them long range, plus adds to national energy independence, which in today's world is a big security issue. Every time you add an additional value added layer to a raw resource..well, that's why they call it "value added". The good stuff distilled from sugar cane squeezings you drink or sell, it is rum, all the other, in the tank.</p><p>Then maybe they wouldn't need the US market all that much and could just ignore it.</p><p>And it works both ways, as a farmer I am tuned to the security issues of both food and fuel, I think it is *perfectly* acceptable and understandable why any nation would want to maintain a core minimum amount of both food and fuel produced domestically, even if temporarily it might be cheaper on some global market. Heck, look at Japan, they go way out of their way to make sure they have *some* intact farming..they want to at all times be able to feed themselves and not be held hostage for such a critical necessity. Ya it costs them a *lot* more, but it is <i>food insurance</i>. And you really can't put a price on that insurance until some theoretical time when if you didn't have it, all of a sudden your imports stop and..well, that would suck. You'd figure out it was worth it..after the fact. Too late then.</p><p>
&nbsp; And frankly, if you look at some of the nations that run huge monoculture farms to supply the US or Europe (or now it will be China using African farmland and some of the richer oil exporting mideast nations doing the same), they do so at the expense of the bulk of their own people, instead of growing a variety of food *first*, to feed their own people first as a national priority, they fixate on this external trade large crop, usually run by some local fatcats/cartels, that go to those foreign markets. Makes these fatcats rich, while their own people go hungrier than they should.</p><p>Malawi in Africa figured this out, crops for export *as the priority* was bankrupting them and leaving their people to starve all the time. A few people were getting rich there, everyone else.... They switched to "feed the nation first" as their ag policy, including government subsidies and so on, and now they are doing much better. Both their domestic food supply got better, and now they can export more again, just by shifting priorities and working <i>smarter</i> with what they have.</p><p><a href="http://allafrica.com/stories/200907020548.html" title="allafrica.com" rel="nofollow">http://allafrica.com/stories/200907020548.html</a> [allafrica.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't like the deal , then they should n't take it ( and I would n't blame them either ) .
They could take their really cheap sugar and make it a value added more lucrative product by turning it into ethanol fuel , like Brazil does , for instance .
Or repurpose the extra sugar cane fields into another valuable food crop , rice maybe ?
Probably any number of good crops can be grown in that sort of soil .
    I do n't think Costa Rica has much of anything for a domestic oil supply , it 's all imported , so making their own fuel makes more economic sense for them long range , plus adds to national energy independence , which in today 's world is a big security issue .
Every time you add an additional value added layer to a raw resource..well , that 's why they call it " value added " .
The good stuff distilled from sugar cane squeezings you drink or sell , it is rum , all the other , in the tank.Then maybe they would n't need the US market all that much and could just ignore it.And it works both ways , as a farmer I am tuned to the security issues of both food and fuel , I think it is * perfectly * acceptable and understandable why any nation would want to maintain a core minimum amount of both food and fuel produced domestically , even if temporarily it might be cheaper on some global market .
Heck , look at Japan , they go way out of their way to make sure they have * some * intact farming..they want to at all times be able to feed themselves and not be held hostage for such a critical necessity .
Ya it costs them a * lot * more , but it is food insurance .
And you really ca n't put a price on that insurance until some theoretical time when if you did n't have it , all of a sudden your imports stop and..well , that would suck .
You 'd figure out it was worth it..after the fact .
Too late then .
  And frankly , if you look at some of the nations that run huge monoculture farms to supply the US or Europe ( or now it will be China using African farmland and some of the richer oil exporting mideast nations doing the same ) , they do so at the expense of the bulk of their own people , instead of growing a variety of food * first * , to feed their own people first as a national priority , they fixate on this external trade large crop , usually run by some local fatcats/cartels , that go to those foreign markets .
Makes these fatcats rich , while their own people go hungrier than they should.Malawi in Africa figured this out , crops for export * as the priority * was bankrupting them and leaving their people to starve all the time .
A few people were getting rich there , everyone else.... They switched to " feed the nation first " as their ag policy , including government subsidies and so on , and now they are doing much better .
Both their domestic food supply got better , and now they can export more again , just by shifting priorities and working smarter with what they have.http : //allafrica.com/stories/200907020548.html [ allafrica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't like the deal, then they shouldn't take it (and I wouldn't blame them either).
They could take their really cheap sugar and make it a value added more lucrative product by turning it into ethanol fuel, like Brazil does, for instance.
Or repurpose the extra sugar cane fields into another valuable food crop, rice maybe?
Probably any number of good crops can be grown in that sort of soil.
    I don't think Costa Rica has much of anything for a domestic oil supply, it's all imported, so making their own fuel makes more economic sense for them long range, plus adds to national energy independence, which in today's world is a big security issue.
Every time you add an additional value added layer to a raw resource..well, that's why they call it "value added".
The good stuff distilled from sugar cane squeezings you drink or sell, it is rum, all the other, in the tank.Then maybe they wouldn't need the US market all that much and could just ignore it.And it works both ways, as a farmer I am tuned to the security issues of both food and fuel, I think it is *perfectly* acceptable and understandable why any nation would want to maintain a core minimum amount of both food and fuel produced domestically, even if temporarily it might be cheaper on some global market.
Heck, look at Japan, they go way out of their way to make sure they have *some* intact farming..they want to at all times be able to feed themselves and not be held hostage for such a critical necessity.
Ya it costs them a *lot* more, but it is food insurance.
And you really can't put a price on that insurance until some theoretical time when if you didn't have it, all of a sudden your imports stop and..well, that would suck.
You'd figure out it was worth it..after the fact.
Too late then.
  And frankly, if you look at some of the nations that run huge monoculture farms to supply the US or Europe (or now it will be China using African farmland and some of the richer oil exporting mideast nations doing the same), they do so at the expense of the bulk of their own people, instead of growing a variety of food *first*, to feed their own people first as a national priority, they fixate on this external trade large crop, usually run by some local fatcats/cartels, that go to those foreign markets.
Makes these fatcats rich, while their own people go hungrier than they should.Malawi in Africa figured this out, crops for export *as the priority* was bankrupting them and leaving their people to starve all the time.
A few people were getting rich there, everyone else.... They switched to "feed the nation first" as their ag policy, including government subsidies and so on, and now they are doing much better.
Both their domestic food supply got better, and now they can export more again, just by shifting priorities and working smarter with what they have.http://allafrica.com/stories/200907020548.html [allafrica.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810730</id>
	<title>"IP La"</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1263843720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's "IP La"?   In Central America, wouldn't it be "La IP" instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's " IP La " ?
In Central America , would n't it be " La IP " instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's "IP La"?
In Central America, wouldn't it be "La IP" instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812462</id>
	<title>Re:Sugar middlemen...</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1263808680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What makes you think the US government wouldn't extend the block to your little operation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think the US government would n't extend the block to your little operation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think the US government wouldn't extend the block to your little operation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811074</id>
	<title>Umm, so?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263845520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. we complain about China because they ignore copyright and patent law on everything, but the it's "let poor Costa Rica be!" when they violate the terms of their treaty and the US doesn't just roll over and ignore it?</p><p>I would be more sympathetic if they refused the treaty, and were then being pressured to accept it "or else".  But here, they're just opting to comply with the parts of the treaty they like, and completely ignore the parts they don't.  I fail to see how this could possibly be spun as a "good thing".</p><p>And the article's rant that "Copyright/patents aren't free trade" is just cynical, feigned ignorance as to what copyright/patents fundamentally are...  Is this the libertarian version of Fox News or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , on / .
we complain about China because they ignore copyright and patent law on everything , but the it 's " let poor Costa Rica be !
" when they violate the terms of their treaty and the US does n't just roll over and ignore it ? I would be more sympathetic if they refused the treaty , and were then being pressured to accept it " or else " .
But here , they 're just opting to comply with the parts of the treaty they like , and completely ignore the parts they do n't .
I fail to see how this could possibly be spun as a " good thing " .And the article 's rant that " Copyright/patents are n't free trade " is just cynical , feigned ignorance as to what copyright/patents fundamentally are... Is this the libertarian version of Fox News or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, on /.
we complain about China because they ignore copyright and patent law on everything, but the it's "let poor Costa Rica be!
" when they violate the terms of their treaty and the US doesn't just roll over and ignore it?I would be more sympathetic if they refused the treaty, and were then being pressured to accept it "or else".
But here, they're just opting to comply with the parts of the treaty they like, and completely ignore the parts they don't.
I fail to see how this could possibly be spun as a "good thing".And the article's rant that "Copyright/patents aren't free trade" is just cynical, feigned ignorance as to what copyright/patents fundamentally are...  Is this the libertarian version of Fox News or what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811344</id>
	<title>Freedom is simple, CAFTA is not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to see a real free trade agreement, you need look no further than our own constitution:<p><div class="quote"><p>Article I, Section 9.  No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.</p></div><p>That's it.  In contrast CAFTA is 3700 pages long.  NAFTA is 2000 pages long.  These agreements do not give freedom, they take it away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to see a real free trade agreement , you need look no further than our own constitution : Article I , Section 9 .
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state .
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another : nor shall vessels bound to , or from , one state , be obliged to enter , clear or pay duties in another.That 's it .
In contrast CAFTA is 3700 pages long .
NAFTA is 2000 pages long .
These agreements do not give freedom , they take it away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to see a real free trade agreement, you need look no further than our own constitution:Article I, Section 9.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.That's it.
In contrast CAFTA is 3700 pages long.
NAFTA is 2000 pages long.
These agreements do not give freedom, they take it away.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812668</id>
	<title>Re:Umm, so? [China]</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263809760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. we complain about China because they ignore copyright and patent law on everything, but the it's "let poor Costa Rica be!" when they violate the terms of their treaty and the US doesn't just roll over and ignore it?</p></div></blockquote><p>China holds too many cards such that politicians don't have the balls to clamp down. Same reason we let individual banks grow too big instead of splitting them up, resulting in "too big to fail".<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , on / .
we complain about China because they ignore copyright and patent law on everything , but the it 's " let poor Costa Rica be !
" when they violate the terms of their treaty and the US does n't just roll over and ignore it ? China holds too many cards such that politicians do n't have the balls to clamp down .
Same reason we let individual banks grow too big instead of splitting them up , resulting in " too big to fail " .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, on /.
we complain about China because they ignore copyright and patent law on everything, but the it's "let poor Costa Rica be!
" when they violate the terms of their treaty and the US doesn't just roll over and ignore it?China holds too many cards such that politicians don't have the balls to clamp down.
Same reason we let individual banks grow too big instead of splitting them up, resulting in "too big to fail".
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810766</id>
	<title>So that's how it works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263843840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In America , first you get the sugar , then you get the power , then you get the women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812730</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1263810000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, it's propaganda.  Something that if you need, generally means you're doing bad shit (eg. Dow Chemical Green/Eco Ads that kick started the currently greenie mania circa 2004).<br><br>The fact that they exist at all is telling.<br><br>And OT: what is this bullshit about the Netherlands banning artifical trans-fats?  WTF is an artificial trans-fat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , it 's propaganda .
Something that if you need , generally means you 're doing bad shit ( eg .
Dow Chemical Green/Eco Ads that kick started the currently greenie mania circa 2004 ) .The fact that they exist at all is telling.And OT : what is this bullshit about the Netherlands banning artifical trans-fats ?
WTF is an artificial trans-fat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, it's propaganda.
Something that if you need, generally means you're doing bad shit (eg.
Dow Chemical Green/Eco Ads that kick started the currently greenie mania circa 2004).The fact that they exist at all is telling.And OT: what is this bullshit about the Netherlands banning artifical trans-fats?
WTF is an artificial trans-fat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816292</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure what the big deal is ...</title>
	<author>walshy007</author>
	<datestamp>1263838740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd better be talking US cents per kilo, otherwise you truly are getting ripped, AU price of sugar just went from 18 to 30 cents a kilo to 20 to 40, which in USD terms is a jump from  US 16 to 27 cents/kilo to 18-37 US cents/kilo.</p><p>when even now you're lucky can manage to get sugar for 20 cents/kilo, 75 is just ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd better be talking US cents per kilo , otherwise you truly are getting ripped , AU price of sugar just went from 18 to 30 cents a kilo to 20 to 40 , which in USD terms is a jump from US 16 to 27 cents/kilo to 18-37 US cents/kilo.when even now you 're lucky can manage to get sugar for 20 cents/kilo , 75 is just ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd better be talking US cents per kilo, otherwise you truly are getting ripped, AU price of sugar just went from 18 to 30 cents a kilo to 20 to 40, which in USD terms is a jump from  US 16 to 27 cents/kilo to 18-37 US cents/kilo.when even now you're lucky can manage to get sugar for 20 cents/kilo, 75 is just ludicrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816224</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1263837660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is, the regular citizens are the ones who pay the price and get the raw end of the deal.  Nothing good ever comes from it, at least not that I can think of.  Consider our [non]relationship with Cuba.  Has our embargo helped anyone?  Has it hurt anyone?  I'd say no to the first question, and yes to the second.  I'm pretty sure the majority of citizens don't want this nonsense, but the corporations do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , the regular citizens are the ones who pay the price and get the raw end of the deal .
Nothing good ever comes from it , at least not that I can think of .
Consider our [ non ] relationship with Cuba .
Has our embargo helped anyone ?
Has it hurt anyone ?
I 'd say no to the first question , and yes to the second .
I 'm pretty sure the majority of citizens do n't want this nonsense , but the corporations do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is, the regular citizens are the ones who pay the price and get the raw end of the deal.
Nothing good ever comes from it, at least not that I can think of.
Consider our [non]relationship with Cuba.
Has our embargo helped anyone?
Has it hurt anyone?
I'd say no to the first question, and yes to the second.
I'm pretty sure the majority of citizens don't want this nonsense, but the corporations do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811476</id>
	<title>Re:Boycott Sugar</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263847320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we can do what we used to do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... grow it in the states.</p><p>Just because we import something doesn't mean we HAVE to.  Its often just far cheaper to import it from some struggling nation than to do it ourselves.</p><p>Pretty much every modern country got that way because it lives off the backs of those 3rd world countries.  It doesn't have to be that way, but if you want to enjoy the same standard of living as you've been doing in the past than this is the way its going to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or ... we can do what we used to do ... grow it in the states.Just because we import something does n't mean we HAVE to .
Its often just far cheaper to import it from some struggling nation than to do it ourselves.Pretty much every modern country got that way because it lives off the backs of those 3rd world countries .
It does n't have to be that way , but if you want to enjoy the same standard of living as you 've been doing in the past than this is the way its going to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or ... we can do what we used to do ... grow it in the states.Just because we import something doesn't mean we HAVE to.
Its often just far cheaper to import it from some struggling nation than to do it ourselves.Pretty much every modern country got that way because it lives off the backs of those 3rd world countries.
It doesn't have to be that way, but if you want to enjoy the same standard of living as you've been doing in the past than this is the way its going to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815546</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263829380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Of course nobody did, and it's not your fault.</i> </p><p>Slashdot -- where stupid-ass universal statements like that find a happy home in discussions among people who expect to be taken seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course nobody did , and it 's not your fault .
Slashdot -- where stupid-ass universal statements like that find a happy home in discussions among people who expect to be taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course nobody did, and it's not your fault.
Slashdot -- where stupid-ass universal statements like that find a happy home in discussions among people who expect to be taken seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816220</id>
	<title>Are these two issues related?</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1263837600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Michael Geist states that  <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4697/125/" title="michaelgeist.ca">they are</a> [michaelgeist.ca] and that the US is deliberately blocking exports</p><blockquote><div><p>The response from the U.S. is important as well.  It is delaying market access to sugar from the developing country until the copyright reforms are in place.  Until that time, Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

a technollama <a href="http://www.technollama.co.uk/has-the-u-s-threatened-costa-rican-sugar-if-ip-law-is-not-approved" title="technollama.co.uk">article</a> [technollama.co.uk] that Geist cited does not seem to have the same opinion.  They were not able to confirm a connection between the issues and in fact found information to the contrary.</p><blockquote><div><p>I was able to track down some more information about this other than the poorly-reference Tico Times article.  La Naci&#243;n reported that the problem was first highlighted by sugar cane exporters in Costa Rica earlier this week.  The exporters complained that they have 11.880 metric tonnes of sugar in storage, which has already been sold to American importers, but that cannot be sent because of CAFTA restrictions.  The American embassy is quoted in that same article as stating that this has nothing to do with CAFTA, and that it is simply a matter of the country having reached its allocated sugar export quotas. This seems like an accurate appraisal of the situations, as I was unable to find a single reference outside of the Tico Times stating that the United States had threatened Costa Rica at all.   In fact, raw cane sugar quotas for 2010 were announced by the U.S. Trade Representative back in September 2009, and are "based on the countries' historical shipments to the United States".</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
For reference, the <a href="http://www.ticotimes.net/dailyarchive/2010\_01/0115101.cfm" title="ticotimes.net">ticotimes.net article</a> [ticotimes.net] simply stated</p><blockquote><div><p>Yet, until the final piece is approved, the United States is delaying market access to sugar. Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S. unless legislators approve the last part, known as the 14th amendment.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
but as the technollama article indicates, no one else has said this and it could not be confirmed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While Michael Geist states that they are [ michaelgeist.ca ] and that the US is deliberately blocking exportsThe response from the U.S. is important as well .
It is delaying market access to sugar from the developing country until the copyright reforms are in place .
Until that time , Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S . a technollama article [ technollama.co.uk ] that Geist cited does not seem to have the same opinion .
They were not able to confirm a connection between the issues and in fact found information to the contrary.I was able to track down some more information about this other than the poorly-reference Tico Times article .
La Naci   n reported that the problem was first highlighted by sugar cane exporters in Costa Rica earlier this week .
The exporters complained that they have 11.880 metric tonnes of sugar in storage , which has already been sold to American importers , but that can not be sent because of CAFTA restrictions .
The American embassy is quoted in that same article as stating that this has nothing to do with CAFTA , and that it is simply a matter of the country having reached its allocated sugar export quotas .
This seems like an accurate appraisal of the situations , as I was unable to find a single reference outside of the Tico Times stating that the United States had threatened Costa Rica at all .
In fact , raw cane sugar quotas for 2010 were announced by the U.S. Trade Representative back in September 2009 , and are " based on the countries ' historical shipments to the United States " .
For reference , the ticotimes.net article [ ticotimes.net ] simply statedYet , until the final piece is approved , the United States is delaying market access to sugar .
Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S. unless legislators approve the last part , known as the 14th amendment .
but as the technollama article indicates , no one else has said this and it could not be confirmed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Michael Geist states that  they are [michaelgeist.ca] and that the US is deliberately blocking exportsThe response from the U.S. is important as well.
It is delaying market access to sugar from the developing country until the copyright reforms are in place.
Until that time, Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S.


a technollama article [technollama.co.uk] that Geist cited does not seem to have the same opinion.
They were not able to confirm a connection between the issues and in fact found information to the contrary.I was able to track down some more information about this other than the poorly-reference Tico Times article.
La Nación reported that the problem was first highlighted by sugar cane exporters in Costa Rica earlier this week.
The exporters complained that they have 11.880 metric tonnes of sugar in storage, which has already been sold to American importers, but that cannot be sent because of CAFTA restrictions.
The American embassy is quoted in that same article as stating that this has nothing to do with CAFTA, and that it is simply a matter of the country having reached its allocated sugar export quotas.
This seems like an accurate appraisal of the situations, as I was unable to find a single reference outside of the Tico Times stating that the United States had threatened Costa Rica at all.
In fact, raw cane sugar quotas for 2010 were announced by the U.S. Trade Representative back in September 2009, and are "based on the countries' historical shipments to the United States".
For reference, the ticotimes.net article [ticotimes.net] simply statedYet, until the final piece is approved, the United States is delaying market access to sugar.
Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S. unless legislators approve the last part, known as the 14th amendment.
but as the technollama article indicates, no one else has said this and it could not be confirmed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811668</id>
	<title>Re:"Free" like I say</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1263848220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Cuz increasingly that's all we have left. Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Just copyright money. It should make it artificially scarce again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuz increasingly that 's all we have left .
Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan .
Just copyright money .
It should make it artificially scarce again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuz increasingly that's all we have left.
Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan.
Just copyright money.
It should make it artificially scarce again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811378</id>
	<title>Re:"IP La"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>News for nerds? Oh well. Am I the only one who things that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is featuring too many articles on politics lately? At least net neutrality and such are somehow a little bit nerdy, but THIS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>News for nerds ?
Oh well .
Am I the only one who things that / .
is featuring too many articles on politics lately ?
At least net neutrality and such are somehow a little bit nerdy , but THIS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News for nerds?
Oh well.
Am I the only one who things that /.
is featuring too many articles on politics lately?
At least net neutrality and such are somehow a little bit nerdy, but THIS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811024</id>
	<title>Boycott Sugar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263845220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop using it.</p><p>When the sugar companies start bitching, the congress critters will whine at obamanator to stop the embargo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop using it.When the sugar companies start bitching , the congress critters will whine at obamanator to stop the embargo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop using it.When the sugar companies start bitching, the congress critters will whine at obamanator to stop the embargo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811720</id>
	<title>Shouldn't import anything.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263805320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would prefer the policy, the USA is blocking all imports, for the hell of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would prefer the policy , the USA is blocking all imports , for the hell of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would prefer the policy, the USA is blocking all imports, for the hell of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812116</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new, really.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263807000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of one country that doesn't use tariffs or trade restrictions to promote its own national interests:  the United States of America.  We drop tariffs and restrictions on anything related to manufacturing, thus ensuring a flood of cheap goods made by slave labor abroad.  We do the same thing for tech jobs and other things like that.  Then we set about protecting an industry that does NOT operate in the interests of the people of the United States:  the "intellectual property" crowd, which as has already been demonstrated in numerous other postings is wildly out of control.  We have a government that actively acts against the interests of its own people and, just to prove we don't discriminate, acts against the interests of people in other countries as well.  Welcome to the 21st century economy.  Would you like fries with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of one country that does n't use tariffs or trade restrictions to promote its own national interests : the United States of America .
We drop tariffs and restrictions on anything related to manufacturing , thus ensuring a flood of cheap goods made by slave labor abroad .
We do the same thing for tech jobs and other things like that .
Then we set about protecting an industry that does NOT operate in the interests of the people of the United States : the " intellectual property " crowd , which as has already been demonstrated in numerous other postings is wildly out of control .
We have a government that actively acts against the interests of its own people and , just to prove we do n't discriminate , acts against the interests of people in other countries as well .
Welcome to the 21st century economy .
Would you like fries with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of one country that doesn't use tariffs or trade restrictions to promote its own national interests:  the United States of America.
We drop tariffs and restrictions on anything related to manufacturing, thus ensuring a flood of cheap goods made by slave labor abroad.
We do the same thing for tech jobs and other things like that.
Then we set about protecting an industry that does NOT operate in the interests of the people of the United States:  the "intellectual property" crowd, which as has already been demonstrated in numerous other postings is wildly out of control.
We have a government that actively acts against the interests of its own people and, just to prove we don't discriminate, acts against the interests of people in other countries as well.
Welcome to the 21st century economy.
Would you like fries with that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812198</id>
	<title>Re:"IP La"</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1263807420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politics is intertwined with everything we do, and in recent years micromanagement by lawfare is well on the way to strangle national and personal freedom.</p><p>The tendency to add laws to micromanage all human conduct is certainly of interest to nerds, as we are despised by the ignorant masses who will cheerfully shitcan OUR rights and freedoms for their convenience. In a world suffocated by the law of the rich and powerful, the only "free" people may one day be those who reject it entirely and are willing to pay the price.</p><p>I don't much care for the only "free" people being the Timothy McVeighs of the world. Instead of letting it get that far we need to watch for every threat to freedom and expose it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politics is intertwined with everything we do , and in recent years micromanagement by lawfare is well on the way to strangle national and personal freedom.The tendency to add laws to micromanage all human conduct is certainly of interest to nerds , as we are despised by the ignorant masses who will cheerfully shitcan OUR rights and freedoms for their convenience .
In a world suffocated by the law of the rich and powerful , the only " free " people may one day be those who reject it entirely and are willing to pay the price.I do n't much care for the only " free " people being the Timothy McVeighs of the world .
Instead of letting it get that far we need to watch for every threat to freedom and expose it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politics is intertwined with everything we do, and in recent years micromanagement by lawfare is well on the way to strangle national and personal freedom.The tendency to add laws to micromanage all human conduct is certainly of interest to nerds, as we are despised by the ignorant masses who will cheerfully shitcan OUR rights and freedoms for their convenience.
In a world suffocated by the law of the rich and powerful, the only "free" people may one day be those who reject it entirely and are willing to pay the price.I don't much care for the only "free" people being the Timothy McVeighs of the world.
Instead of letting it get that far we need to watch for every threat to freedom and expose it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811960</id>
	<title>Here Here!</title>
	<author>osmosium</author>
	<datestamp>1263806340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What ever happened to just invading a country?  Oh, how I miss those sweet, sweet days.  Now its all agreements, and getting along.  Dont those guys remember Grenada?  How dare we employ signed agreements.  Please Obama, cant we invite just one tiny country more?

Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ever happened to just invading a country ?
Oh , how I miss those sweet , sweet days .
Now its all agreements , and getting along .
Dont those guys remember Grenada ?
How dare we employ signed agreements .
Please Obama , cant we invite just one tiny country more ?
Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ever happened to just invading a country?
Oh, how I miss those sweet, sweet days.
Now its all agreements, and getting along.
Dont those guys remember Grenada?
How dare we employ signed agreements.
Please Obama, cant we invite just one tiny country more?
Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815876</id>
	<title>Call Me A Language loonie</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263832920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        I'm not certain whether I should be called a language loonie, a logic loonie or a political radical but here goes my rant: Free trade means free of all laws, all rules, all taxes, all regulations. The blithering about free markets and capitalism is a right wing conspiracy in and of itself. No nation, not even a tribe of primitives, has ever tried free trade for even one solitary moment. The notion of free trade compares to pregnancy. One absolutely is or is not pregnant. There are no stages or shades of grey.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; By letting people absorb the false facts about free trade it becomes easy to further manipulate their lives. Obviously it follows as the night the day that if free trade has never existed then nothing really is known about free trade at all. It is false theoretical dribble designed to enslave under educated populations.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I cringe in horror at the supposedly logical, supposedly educated types who spout off about free trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not certain whether I should be called a language loonie , a logic loonie or a political radical but here goes my rant : Free trade means free of all laws , all rules , all taxes , all regulations .
The blithering about free markets and capitalism is a right wing conspiracy in and of itself .
No nation , not even a tribe of primitives , has ever tried free trade for even one solitary moment .
The notion of free trade compares to pregnancy .
One absolutely is or is not pregnant .
There are no stages or shades of grey .
                By letting people absorb the false facts about free trade it becomes easy to further manipulate their lives .
Obviously it follows as the night the day that if free trade has never existed then nothing really is known about free trade at all .
It is false theoretical dribble designed to enslave under educated populations .
                  I cringe in horror at the supposedly logical , supposedly educated types who spout off about free trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        I'm not certain whether I should be called a language loonie, a logic loonie or a political radical but here goes my rant: Free trade means free of all laws, all rules, all taxes, all regulations.
The blithering about free markets and capitalism is a right wing conspiracy in and of itself.
No nation, not even a tribe of primitives, has ever tried free trade for even one solitary moment.
The notion of free trade compares to pregnancy.
One absolutely is or is not pregnant.
There are no stages or shades of grey.
                By letting people absorb the false facts about free trade it becomes easy to further manipulate their lives.
Obviously it follows as the night the day that if free trade has never existed then nothing really is known about free trade at all.
It is false theoretical dribble designed to enslave under educated populations.
                  I cringe in horror at the supposedly logical, supposedly educated types who spout off about free trade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30818614</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263913320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I understand it, one of the problems with HCFS is that, because it doesn't require the same enzymes to break down, it doesn't trigger the chemical releases that tell your brain that you are full.  This means that you don't stop eating when you have had as much sugar as your body requires.  It also metabolises more quickly, giving you a bigger sugar rush then crash and places more strain on your body's insulin production, increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , one of the problems with HCFS is that , because it does n't require the same enzymes to break down , it does n't trigger the chemical releases that tell your brain that you are full .
This means that you do n't stop eating when you have had as much sugar as your body requires .
It also metabolises more quickly , giving you a bigger sugar rush then crash and places more strain on your body 's insulin production , increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, one of the problems with HCFS is that, because it doesn't require the same enzymes to break down, it doesn't trigger the chemical releases that tell your brain that you are full.
This means that you don't stop eating when you have had as much sugar as your body requires.
It also metabolises more quickly, giving you a bigger sugar rush then crash and places more strain on your body's insulin production, increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811438</id>
	<title>Re:Legality</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1263847200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really this strikes you as a low blow.</p><p>Costa Rica: "We aren't going to pay for American IP."<br>USA: "We aren't going to buy Costa Rican products then."</p><p>Seems like a reasonable reaction.   If they aren't going to pay for our products why should we continue buying theirs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really this strikes you as a low blow.Costa Rica : " We are n't going to pay for American IP .
" USA : " We are n't going to buy Costa Rican products then .
" Seems like a reasonable reaction .
If they are n't going to pay for our products why should we continue buying theirs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really this strikes you as a low blow.Costa Rica: "We aren't going to pay for American IP.
"USA: "We aren't going to buy Costa Rican products then.
"Seems like a reasonable reaction.
If they aren't going to pay for our products why should we continue buying theirs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811032</id>
	<title>US leader producer of Poor people around the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263845220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just wrong... US its just a Bully...

President Chavez is right.




Cant wait to see all the stupid replies to my comment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just wrong... US its just a Bully.. . President Chavez is right .
Cant wait to see all the stupid replies to my comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just wrong... US its just a Bully...

President Chavez is right.
Cant wait to see all the stupid replies to my comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815024</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade not free property</title>
	<author>hawkingradiation</author>
	<datestamp>1263823800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IP laws being uniform \_required\_ for free trade is ridiculous since it is the lowest common denominator of trade: I'll give you a monopoly for x if you give a monopoly for y. How is that free trade? Also your  first sentence after the quotation doesn't parse right: "(IP) laws being uniform across a free trade..." What is "a free trade" and what is "required" and how is [it] not the exact opposite of free trade. Another poster got a high mod when he stated that "America produces IP laws , and Costa Rico produces sugar..". How can this be an imbalance? The fact that one is a sheet of paper produced in a meeting of lobbyists, government, law makers and minimal investment (how much do we pay the lawyers) and the other is actually a product of labour, machinery, and an actual "trade" for other goods or money. It seems as though IP laws are just another form of paper, to be passed around like money when nothing else is being produced but still have value like money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP laws being uniform \ _required \ _ for free trade is ridiculous since it is the lowest common denominator of trade : I 'll give you a monopoly for x if you give a monopoly for y. How is that free trade ?
Also your first sentence after the quotation does n't parse right : " ( IP ) laws being uniform across a free trade... " What is " a free trade " and what is " required " and how is [ it ] not the exact opposite of free trade .
Another poster got a high mod when he stated that " America produces IP laws , and Costa Rico produces sugar.. " .
How can this be an imbalance ?
The fact that one is a sheet of paper produced in a meeting of lobbyists , government , law makers and minimal investment ( how much do we pay the lawyers ) and the other is actually a product of labour , machinery , and an actual " trade " for other goods or money .
It seems as though IP laws are just another form of paper , to be passed around like money when nothing else is being produced but still have value like money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP laws being uniform \_required\_ for free trade is ridiculous since it is the lowest common denominator of trade: I'll give you a monopoly for x if you give a monopoly for y. How is that free trade?
Also your  first sentence after the quotation doesn't parse right: "(IP) laws being uniform across a free trade..." What is "a free trade" and what is "required" and how is [it] not the exact opposite of free trade.
Another poster got a high mod when he stated that "America produces IP laws , and Costa Rico produces sugar..".
How can this be an imbalance?
The fact that one is a sheet of paper produced in a meeting of lobbyists, government, law makers and minimal investment (how much do we pay the lawyers) and the other is actually a product of labour, machinery, and an actual "trade" for other goods or money.
It seems as though IP laws are just another form of paper, to be passed around like money when nothing else is being produced but still have value like money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815034</id>
	<title>China is waiting</title>
	<author>happyfeet2000</author>
	<datestamp>1263823860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>South American countries are diversifying their exports cutting deals with China and the EU. Mexico and Central America are still in US hands commercially speaking, but the US is doing everything they can to push them into China's arms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>South American countries are diversifying their exports cutting deals with China and the EU .
Mexico and Central America are still in US hands commercially speaking , but the US is doing everything they can to push them into China 's arms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>South American countries are diversifying their exports cutting deals with China and the EU.
Mexico and Central America are still in US hands commercially speaking, but the US is doing everything they can to push them into China's arms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813940</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the government should have</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263816000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well in that case they would have said "Well we won't buy your stuff".</p><p>I've seen this before in my small country - US comes along and says "sign this" and really you have no choice. It's not that they'll bomb you or anything, but they can fuck you in any number of ways that are possibly worse:</p><p>1. Not buy your stuff<br>2. Freeze company assets in the US (or even passing through the US - like money tranfers)<br>3. tariffs<br>4. Sticking you on some terrorist/trafficking/pirating/random state department list, making it harder to do business.<br>5. Possible political meddling (if you're small enough no one will even blink).<br>6 Get you through the WTO or something similar - the sheer number of reps they have there dwarfs what a small country can afford.</p><p>Essentially it's bullying tactics - your damned if you do and damned if you don't. Any pretense at negotiations is just bull. As a example, the US navy sometimes stops by to replenish supplies, photo opportunities, PR etc, and as a condition the govt had to sign some kind of legal agreement saying that US personnel can't be prosecuted locally. So a US serviceman could go apeshit, kill 20 people and we couldn't arrest him. Granted the US justice system isn't 3rd world, but we all saw what happened with the blackwater guys - and they weren't even army personnel.</p><p>I saw the difference when we joined the EU - much better when you actually have some semblance of negotiating power. You might say that it's always been the case that the big boys dictate the rules of the game, buy really, when half the population of the world are little guys do you really expect not to get shafted in the long run?</p><p>It's all well and good bullying small countries, but when they organise into giant blocks, you will piss your pants - It's already happening with the EU, BRIC, Latin America seems to be somewhat going that way, and there's already the African Union (although Africa as a continent is probably the biggest shitfest in human history). Lets not forget that the EU took 50 years to get to it's present state.</p><p>The fact is that while America is just waking up to the fact that years of cold war meddling, failed neo-con foreign policy and the "OMG terrorist" hyper-reactions have actually conspired against it and it now finds itself increasingly alone in a more cooperative world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well in that case they would have said " Well we wo n't buy your stuff " .I 've seen this before in my small country - US comes along and says " sign this " and really you have no choice .
It 's not that they 'll bomb you or anything , but they can fuck you in any number of ways that are possibly worse : 1 .
Not buy your stuff2 .
Freeze company assets in the US ( or even passing through the US - like money tranfers ) 3. tariffs4. Sticking you on some terrorist/trafficking/pirating/random state department list , making it harder to do business.5 .
Possible political meddling ( if you 're small enough no one will even blink ) .6 Get you through the WTO or something similar - the sheer number of reps they have there dwarfs what a small country can afford.Essentially it 's bullying tactics - your damned if you do and damned if you do n't .
Any pretense at negotiations is just bull .
As a example , the US navy sometimes stops by to replenish supplies , photo opportunities , PR etc , and as a condition the govt had to sign some kind of legal agreement saying that US personnel ca n't be prosecuted locally .
So a US serviceman could go apeshit , kill 20 people and we could n't arrest him .
Granted the US justice system is n't 3rd world , but we all saw what happened with the blackwater guys - and they were n't even army personnel.I saw the difference when we joined the EU - much better when you actually have some semblance of negotiating power .
You might say that it 's always been the case that the big boys dictate the rules of the game , buy really , when half the population of the world are little guys do you really expect not to get shafted in the long run ? It 's all well and good bullying small countries , but when they organise into giant blocks , you will piss your pants - It 's already happening with the EU , BRIC , Latin America seems to be somewhat going that way , and there 's already the African Union ( although Africa as a continent is probably the biggest shitfest in human history ) .
Lets not forget that the EU took 50 years to get to it 's present state.The fact is that while America is just waking up to the fact that years of cold war meddling , failed neo-con foreign policy and the " OMG terrorist " hyper-reactions have actually conspired against it and it now finds itself increasingly alone in a more cooperative world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well in that case they would have said "Well we won't buy your stuff".I've seen this before in my small country - US comes along and says "sign this" and really you have no choice.
It's not that they'll bomb you or anything, but they can fuck you in any number of ways that are possibly worse:1.
Not buy your stuff2.
Freeze company assets in the US (or even passing through the US - like money tranfers)3. tariffs4. Sticking you on some terrorist/trafficking/pirating/random state department list, making it harder to do business.5.
Possible political meddling (if you're small enough no one will even blink).6 Get you through the WTO or something similar - the sheer number of reps they have there dwarfs what a small country can afford.Essentially it's bullying tactics - your damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Any pretense at negotiations is just bull.
As a example, the US navy sometimes stops by to replenish supplies, photo opportunities, PR etc, and as a condition the govt had to sign some kind of legal agreement saying that US personnel can't be prosecuted locally.
So a US serviceman could go apeshit, kill 20 people and we couldn't arrest him.
Granted the US justice system isn't 3rd world, but we all saw what happened with the blackwater guys - and they weren't even army personnel.I saw the difference when we joined the EU - much better when you actually have some semblance of negotiating power.
You might say that it's always been the case that the big boys dictate the rules of the game, buy really, when half the population of the world are little guys do you really expect not to get shafted in the long run?It's all well and good bullying small countries, but when they organise into giant blocks, you will piss your pants - It's already happening with the EU, BRIC, Latin America seems to be somewhat going that way, and there's already the African Union (although Africa as a continent is probably the biggest shitfest in human history).
Lets not forget that the EU took 50 years to get to it's present state.The fact is that while America is just waking up to the fact that years of cold war meddling, failed neo-con foreign policy and the "OMG terrorist" hyper-reactions have actually conspired against it and it now finds itself increasingly alone in a more cooperative world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810860</id>
	<title>Just because they were paranoid...</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1263844380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... doesn't mean they were wrong.</p><p>Congratulations, the West was so focused on preventing communist totalitarians from taking over the world we've let capitalists move in and fill the niche.</p><p>The One World Government is here.  But it's not a communist state, it's a kleptocracy.</p><p>(Hey, but at least we have Avatar and deep fried butter to distract us.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... does n't mean they were wrong.Congratulations , the West was so focused on preventing communist totalitarians from taking over the world we 've let capitalists move in and fill the niche.The One World Government is here .
But it 's not a communist state , it 's a kleptocracy .
( Hey , but at least we have Avatar and deep fried butter to distract us .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... doesn't mean they were wrong.Congratulations, the West was so focused on preventing communist totalitarians from taking over the world we've let capitalists move in and fill the niche.The One World Government is here.
But it's not a communist state, it's a kleptocracy.
(Hey, but at least we have Avatar and deep fried butter to distract us.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812360</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>neonv</author>
	<datestamp>1263808080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author is manipulating words, e.g.</p><p>"I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism &mdash; the exact opposite of 'free trade' &mdash; gets included in free trade agreements"</p><p>'free trade' in this context means no tariffs, it doesn't mean free goods and services for everyone.  IP takes effort to make, there no reason to give it away free just because it's not tangible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author is manipulating words , e.g .
" I still can not understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism    the exact opposite of 'free trade '    gets included in free trade agreements " 'free trade ' in this context means no tariffs , it does n't mean free goods and services for everyone .
IP takes effort to make , there no reason to give it away free just because it 's not tangible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author is manipulating words, e.g.
"I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism — the exact opposite of 'free trade' — gets included in free trade agreements"'free trade' in this context means no tariffs, it doesn't mean free goods and services for everyone.
IP takes effort to make, there no reason to give it away free just because it's not tangible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811538</id>
	<title>Throwback?</title>
	<author>wile\_e8</author>
	<datestamp>1263847560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does this mean the limited time availability for me to buy Mountain Dew Throwback just got even more limited?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean the limited time availability for me to buy Mountain Dew Throwback just got even more limited ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean the limited time availability for me to buy Mountain Dew Throwback just got even more limited?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812842</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>Moridin42</author>
	<datestamp>1263810540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What difference does it make? Even if every person who voted for <i>every</i> representative, senator, and the president knew in fine detail each one's stance on international trade, it is unlikely that the vote was cast solely on that stance.</p><p>This is the ugly nature of representative democracy. Voters compromise between their representative's views on various numbers of international and domestic issues. They choose the least shitty choice to vote for. The representatives then meet and try to compromise their way to a law, treaty, or policy. They negotiate a least shitty document and sign it. The end result is something that no one is really happy with.</p><p>And those are under ideal circumstances, which dare I say never occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What difference does it make ?
Even if every person who voted for every representative , senator , and the president knew in fine detail each one 's stance on international trade , it is unlikely that the vote was cast solely on that stance.This is the ugly nature of representative democracy .
Voters compromise between their representative 's views on various numbers of international and domestic issues .
They choose the least shitty choice to vote for .
The representatives then meet and try to compromise their way to a law , treaty , or policy .
They negotiate a least shitty document and sign it .
The end result is something that no one is really happy with.And those are under ideal circumstances , which dare I say never occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What difference does it make?
Even if every person who voted for every representative, senator, and the president knew in fine detail each one's stance on international trade, it is unlikely that the vote was cast solely on that stance.This is the ugly nature of representative democracy.
Voters compromise between their representative's views on various numbers of international and domestic issues.
They choose the least shitty choice to vote for.
The representatives then meet and try to compromise their way to a law, treaty, or policy.
They negotiate a least shitty document and sign it.
The end result is something that no one is really happy with.And those are under ideal circumstances, which dare I say never occur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811382</id>
	<title>Re:Umm, so?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other side of that fickle little coin you just flipped into the crowd, is that it would set a precedent for the US to be forced to comply with certain unfortunate things in ACTA, should/when it get passed.</p><p>Our law makers have been pretty much left out of the deliberations and concessions meetings over ACTA, yet it is still going strong. If/When Acta passes (I am almost certain it will.), then the US has to draft legislation to satisfy the agreement's requirements (like that nasty 3 strikes business.)</p><p>If the US doesnt comply, we are hypocrites for what we are doing right now to Costa Rica.</p><p>I would rather see bullshit trade agreements like these rapidly abandoned, and so cheer on any nation that undermines their power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other side of that fickle little coin you just flipped into the crowd , is that it would set a precedent for the US to be forced to comply with certain unfortunate things in ACTA , should/when it get passed.Our law makers have been pretty much left out of the deliberations and concessions meetings over ACTA , yet it is still going strong .
If/When Acta passes ( I am almost certain it will .
) , then the US has to draft legislation to satisfy the agreement 's requirements ( like that nasty 3 strikes business .
) If the US doesnt comply , we are hypocrites for what we are doing right now to Costa Rica.I would rather see bullshit trade agreements like these rapidly abandoned , and so cheer on any nation that undermines their power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other side of that fickle little coin you just flipped into the crowd, is that it would set a precedent for the US to be forced to comply with certain unfortunate things in ACTA, should/when it get passed.Our law makers have been pretty much left out of the deliberations and concessions meetings over ACTA, yet it is still going strong.
If/When Acta passes (I am almost certain it will.
), then the US has to draft legislation to satisfy the agreement's requirements (like that nasty 3 strikes business.
)If the US doesnt comply, we are hypocrites for what we are doing right now to Costa Rica.I would rather see bullshit trade agreements like these rapidly abandoned, and so cheer on any nation that undermines their power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810838</id>
	<title>How about, BECAUSE THEY STILL OUR SHIT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263844260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your neighbor stole your shit, would sit back and take it like a pussy, Flanders?  Yes, you would, but if anybody is doing any stealing around here, it's me.</p><p>Homer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your neighbor stole your shit , would sit back and take it like a pussy , Flanders ?
Yes , you would , but if anybody is doing any stealing around here , it 's me.Homer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your neighbor stole your shit, would sit back and take it like a pussy, Flanders?
Yes, you would, but if anybody is doing any stealing around here, it's me.Homer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811006</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1263845100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem occurs when you disagree with American IP laws..

US Patents are ridiculous, Copyright terms are way too long..  and punishments for infringement are far too severe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem occurs when you disagree with American IP laws. . US Patents are ridiculous , Copyright terms are way too long.. and punishments for infringement are far too severe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem occurs when you disagree with American IP laws..

US Patents are ridiculous, Copyright terms are way too long..  and punishments for infringement are far too severe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30827226</id>
	<title>Re:Sugar middlemen...</title>
	<author>Alcoholist</author>
	<datestamp>1263910800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could be like a rum-runner during the prohibition.  Sneaking contraband sugar into sweeteasys in the US.  I've been looking for a career change anyway, sign me up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could be like a rum-runner during the prohibition .
Sneaking contraband sugar into sweeteasys in the US .
I 've been looking for a career change anyway , sign me up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could be like a rum-runner during the prohibition.
Sneaking contraband sugar into sweeteasys in the US.
I've been looking for a career change anyway, sign me up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814872</id>
	<title>Easy fix: no drug exports</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1263822600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an easy fix that will shutdown a large part of another economic import from South America that makes both parties very, very rich. Since, I think South American countries feel they are probably getting screwed by the US government, they should start an embargo themselves and stop Cocaine exports to the US. Yes, coke is highly illegal to begin with in the US, but the drug trade is a significant economic contributor, a lot more I would think than IP and sugar combined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an easy fix that will shutdown a large part of another economic import from South America that makes both parties very , very rich .
Since , I think South American countries feel they are probably getting screwed by the US government , they should start an embargo themselves and stop Cocaine exports to the US .
Yes , coke is highly illegal to begin with in the US , but the drug trade is a significant economic contributor , a lot more I would think than IP and sugar combined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an easy fix that will shutdown a large part of another economic import from South America that makes both parties very, very rich.
Since, I think South American countries feel they are probably getting screwed by the US government, they should start an embargo themselves and stop Cocaine exports to the US.
Yes, coke is highly illegal to begin with in the US, but the drug trade is a significant economic contributor, a lot more I would think than IP and sugar combined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811866</id>
	<title>OMG, not the sugar!</title>
	<author>osmosium</author>
	<datestamp>1263805920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You make it sounds like a bad thing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sounds like a bad thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sounds like a bad thing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815354</id>
	<title>OLD NEWS DAY</title>
	<author>Crypto Gnome</author>
	<datestamp>1263827160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why this is even a headline these days is absolutely beyond me.<br> <br>Exactly the same thing was done to Australia a couple of years ago, we are now bound by American Copyright laws in return for some not-100\%-royally-screwing-australia "free trade" agreements.<br> <br>The irony of the thing is that America was founded on "no taxation without representation" and now they want to shove their laws down my throat but without *also* giving me the rights/priviledges of "being an american".<br> <br>Welcome to the modern methods of empire-building.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why this is even a headline these days is absolutely beyond me .
Exactly the same thing was done to Australia a couple of years ago , we are now bound by American Copyright laws in return for some not-100 \ % -royally-screwing-australia " free trade " agreements .
The irony of the thing is that America was founded on " no taxation without representation " and now they want to shove their laws down my throat but without * also * giving me the rights/priviledges of " being an american " .
Welcome to the modern methods of empire-building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why this is even a headline these days is absolutely beyond me.
Exactly the same thing was done to Australia a couple of years ago, we are now bound by American Copyright laws in return for some not-100\%-royally-screwing-australia "free trade" agreements.
The irony of the thing is that America was founded on "no taxation without representation" and now they want to shove their laws down my throat but without *also* giving me the rights/priviledges of "being an american".
Welcome to the modern methods of empire-building.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813926</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>notmuchtosay</author>
	<datestamp>1263815940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I usually got the Mexican Coca Cola too.  It tastes better.  About three months ago I got one with my usual order from the taqueria, tasted it and something was just off about it.  I checked the bottle and it now states "sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup."  It is sad to see the only direct benefit I had disappear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually got the Mexican Coca Cola too .
It tastes better .
About three months ago I got one with my usual order from the taqueria , tasted it and something was just off about it .
I checked the bottle and it now states " sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup .
" It is sad to see the only direct benefit I had disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually got the Mexican Coca Cola too.
It tastes better.
About three months ago I got one with my usual order from the taqueria, tasted it and something was just off about it.
I checked the bottle and it now states "sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup.
"  It is sad to see the only direct benefit I had disappear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821054</id>
	<title>IP?</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1263924720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't cave on me...Costa Rica!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't cave on me...Costa Rica !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't cave on me...Costa Rica!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811278</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263846540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL I know, sorry, slip there, but you know what I mean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL I know , sorry , slip there , but you know what I mean : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL I know, sorry, slip there, but you know what I mean :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815868</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263832800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I still prefer the Japanese Coca Cola light. It&rsquo;s made with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia" title="wikipedia.org">Stevia</a> [wikipedia.org] instead of the very extremely unhealthy Aspartame.<br>Because a study showed that if you feed a mouse about 50\% of its body weight in Stevia, each day, it will partially lose the ability to reproduce. (Try that with salt, and see if it will reproduce. Hell, that amount of <em>water</em> could easily be deadly.)</p><p>Guess who owns Aspartame? Right! Monsanto.<br>And who did the study? Exactly! Monsanto!</p><p>Yay for <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844&amp;ei=bClVS929CJnk2gL-6MTEBg&amp;q=the+world+according+to+monsanto&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a#" title="google.com">revolving doors with the government</a> [google.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I still prefer the Japanese Coca Cola light .
It    s made with Stevia [ wikipedia.org ] instead of the very extremely unhealthy Aspartame.Because a study showed that if you feed a mouse about 50 \ % of its body weight in Stevia , each day , it will partially lose the ability to reproduce .
( Try that with salt , and see if it will reproduce .
Hell , that amount of water could easily be deadly .
) Guess who owns Aspartame ?
Right ! Monsanto.And who did the study ?
Exactly ! Monsanto ! Yay for revolving doors with the government [ google.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I still prefer the Japanese Coca Cola light.
It’s made with Stevia [wikipedia.org] instead of the very extremely unhealthy Aspartame.Because a study showed that if you feed a mouse about 50\% of its body weight in Stevia, each day, it will partially lose the ability to reproduce.
(Try that with salt, and see if it will reproduce.
Hell, that amount of water could easily be deadly.
)Guess who owns Aspartame?
Right! Monsanto.And who did the study?
Exactly! Monsanto!Yay for revolving doors with the government [google.com]!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815456</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263828420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>countries like Europe</p></div><p>-1, clueless</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>countries like Europe-1 , clueless</tokentext>
<sentencetext>countries like Europe-1, clueless
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810842</id>
	<title>And so</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1263844320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That government of the corporations<br>By the corporations<br>For the corporations<br>Shall not perish from the Earth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That government of the corporationsBy the corporationsFor the corporationsShall not perish from the Earth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That government of the corporationsBy the corporationsFor the corporationsShall not perish from the Earth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812084</id>
	<title>So many one-sided stories out there these days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263806880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are way, way to many one-sided stories out there just waiting for the naive to eat them up.</p><p>The U.S. is bleeding jobs and money. The economy almost crashed 2 years ago. Nearly every retail item purchased in America is not American made. Even non-manufacturing jobs are flying overseas as fast as possible.</p><p>Kiss my ass with this free-trade garbage and tell all sides of the story.</p><p>I write this as the great "Satan" America spends hundreds of millions of dollars helping Haiti after they were devastated by an earthquake. Kind of like we did after the tsunami in 2004.</p><p>Man we are such greedy, evil bastards here in America. I know me personally, I sent my money to Haiti for power and greed or so I can suppress someone.</p><p>You simpleton whiners living in your parents basements better pray to the god of skinny punks that you never see a world without America. You would last about a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are way , way to many one-sided stories out there just waiting for the naive to eat them up.The U.S. is bleeding jobs and money .
The economy almost crashed 2 years ago .
Nearly every retail item purchased in America is not American made .
Even non-manufacturing jobs are flying overseas as fast as possible.Kiss my ass with this free-trade garbage and tell all sides of the story.I write this as the great " Satan " America spends hundreds of millions of dollars helping Haiti after they were devastated by an earthquake .
Kind of like we did after the tsunami in 2004.Man we are such greedy , evil bastards here in America .
I know me personally , I sent my money to Haiti for power and greed or so I can suppress someone.You simpleton whiners living in your parents basements better pray to the god of skinny punks that you never see a world without America .
You would last about a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are way, way to many one-sided stories out there just waiting for the naive to eat them up.The U.S. is bleeding jobs and money.
The economy almost crashed 2 years ago.
Nearly every retail item purchased in America is not American made.
Even non-manufacturing jobs are flying overseas as fast as possible.Kiss my ass with this free-trade garbage and tell all sides of the story.I write this as the great "Satan" America spends hundreds of millions of dollars helping Haiti after they were devastated by an earthquake.
Kind of like we did after the tsunami in 2004.Man we are such greedy, evil bastards here in America.
I know me personally, I sent my money to Haiti for power and greed or so I can suppress someone.You simpleton whiners living in your parents basements better pray to the god of skinny punks that you never see a world without America.
You would last about a week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811094</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>yakumo.unr</author>
	<datestamp>1263845580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If  you're referring to this then +1 funny : <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn" title="slashdot.org">http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're referring to this then + 1 funny : http : //science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If  you're referring to this then +1 funny : http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810772</id>
	<title>"Free" like I say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263843900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism -- the exact opposite of "free trade" -- gets included in free trade agreements...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Cuz increasingly that's all we have left.  Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still can not understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism -- the exact opposite of " free trade " -- gets included in free trade agreements.. . Cuz increasingly that 's all we have left .
Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still cannot understand why intellectual monopoly protectionism -- the exact opposite of "free trade" -- gets included in free trade agreements...

Cuz increasingly that's all we have left.
Especially now that money-printing business has hit the fan.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813084</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1263811800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US is not refusing to trade with Costa Rica, it is refusing to import sugar only. It is not some "fair play" trade arrangement, it has targeted a specific industry to lobby internally on it's behalf. Then there's the question whether the whole thing is really protectionism of US sugar production. This is how "free trade" works, by calling itself free trade whilst being nothing of the sort.</p><p>Worse, this isn't about trade. Not to the Costa Ricans. It's about sovereign issues, manipulation of internal politics to overturn the will of the people. </p><p>This is "news" because Obama was very popular internationally because they were hoping for less of this crap. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is not refusing to trade with Costa Rica , it is refusing to import sugar only .
It is not some " fair play " trade arrangement , it has targeted a specific industry to lobby internally on it 's behalf .
Then there 's the question whether the whole thing is really protectionism of US sugar production .
This is how " free trade " works , by calling itself free trade whilst being nothing of the sort.Worse , this is n't about trade .
Not to the Costa Ricans .
It 's about sovereign issues , manipulation of internal politics to overturn the will of the people .
This is " news " because Obama was very popular internationally because they were hoping for less of this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is not refusing to trade with Costa Rica, it is refusing to import sugar only.
It is not some "fair play" trade arrangement, it has targeted a specific industry to lobby internally on it's behalf.
Then there's the question whether the whole thing is really protectionism of US sugar production.
This is how "free trade" works, by calling itself free trade whilst being nothing of the sort.Worse, this isn't about trade.
Not to the Costa Ricans.
It's about sovereign issues, manipulation of internal politics to overturn the will of the people.
This is "news" because Obama was very popular internationally because they were hoping for less of this crap. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816178</id>
	<title>Re:Just because they were paranoid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263836940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Congratulations, the West was so focused on preventing communist totalitarians from taking over the world that we decided to fill the niche by being bigger and better communist totalitarians."</p><p>There, I fixed that for you.</p><p>Anybody who thinks that tariffs and protectionism is "capitalist" needs a stiff beating with Mises and Rothbard.  Hint:  those tariffs screw everybody *else* in the tariff-ing country for the benefit of a particular group of interests.</p><p>This is a problem of government intervention.  The solution - "abolish interventionist government" - is never seriously considered.</p><p>Had enough yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Congratulations , the West was so focused on preventing communist totalitarians from taking over the world that we decided to fill the niche by being bigger and better communist totalitarians .
" There , I fixed that for you.Anybody who thinks that tariffs and protectionism is " capitalist " needs a stiff beating with Mises and Rothbard .
Hint : those tariffs screw everybody * else * in the tariff-ing country for the benefit of a particular group of interests.This is a problem of government intervention .
The solution - " abolish interventionist government " - is never seriously considered.Had enough yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Congratulations, the West was so focused on preventing communist totalitarians from taking over the world that we decided to fill the niche by being bigger and better communist totalitarians.
"There, I fixed that for you.Anybody who thinks that tariffs and protectionism is "capitalist" needs a stiff beating with Mises and Rothbard.
Hint:  those tariffs screw everybody *else* in the tariff-ing country for the benefit of a particular group of interests.This is a problem of government intervention.
The solution - "abolish interventionist government" - is never seriously considered.Had enough yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812080</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263806880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how many elected officials know their own views before they have their big donors tell them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how many elected officials know their own views before they have their big donors tell them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many elected officials know their own views before they have their big donors tell them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786</id>
	<title>Sugar middlemen...</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1263843960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes me want to setup shop on an island to buy sugar from Costa Rica solely for the purpose of reselling it to the US so Costa Rica can maintain their dignity.</p><p>And any other resource for that matter... maybe some type of ship exchange like you do with Propane.  Hell, I could corner the market on all sugar imports so they won't be able to tell how much of it is Costa Rica sugar...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me want to setup shop on an island to buy sugar from Costa Rica solely for the purpose of reselling it to the US so Costa Rica can maintain their dignity.And any other resource for that matter... maybe some type of ship exchange like you do with Propane .
Hell , I could corner the market on all sugar imports so they wo n't be able to tell how much of it is Costa Rica sugar.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me want to setup shop on an island to buy sugar from Costa Rica solely for the purpose of reselling it to the US so Costa Rica can maintain their dignity.And any other resource for that matter... maybe some type of ship exchange like you do with Propane.
Hell, I could corner the market on all sugar imports so they won't be able to tell how much of it is Costa Rica sugar...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852</id>
	<title>Color me underwhelmed.</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1263844380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>US pushes around Central American country and gets away with it because we are their biggest market. Gee, that's only been the story of, what, the past 150 years?</htmltext>
<tokenext>US pushes around Central American country and gets away with it because we are their biggest market .
Gee , that 's only been the story of , what , the past 150 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US pushes around Central American country and gets away with it because we are their biggest market.
Gee, that's only been the story of, what, the past 150 years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816188</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade not free property</title>
	<author>sdeath</author>
	<datestamp>1263837120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This would be most dramatic if the intellectual property was produced in one nation under its laws then used without license by another nation to effectively eliminate the benefits of the intellectual property protects."</p><p>And what a tragedy *that* would be, huh?</p><p>"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This would be most dramatic if the intellectual property was produced in one nation under its laws then used without license by another nation to effectively eliminate the benefits of the intellectual property protects .
" And what a tragedy * that * would be , huh ?
" THINK OF THE CHILDREN ! ! ! ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This would be most dramatic if the intellectual property was produced in one nation under its laws then used without license by another nation to effectively eliminate the benefits of the intellectual property protects.
"And what a tragedy *that* would be, huh?
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811838</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1263805800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US has a lot more clout than Costa Rica. There aren't many countries that can't be bought or bullied by the US.<br>As others have posted, Costa Rica should make a case to the WTO or the other members of CAFTA to try strongarming<br>the US - something of an uphill battle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has a lot more clout than Costa Rica .
There are n't many countries that ca n't be bought or bullied by the US.As others have posted , Costa Rica should make a case to the WTO or the other members of CAFTA to try strongarmingthe US - something of an uphill battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has a lot more clout than Costa Rica.
There aren't many countries that can't be bought or bullied by the US.As others have posted, Costa Rica should make a case to the WTO or the other members of CAFTA to try strongarmingthe US - something of an uphill battle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811596</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263847860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why these trade rules aren't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because other than a few attention whores who will do whatever they can to get people to look at them, no one actually gives a fuck about the environment.  Kind of like yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why these trade rules are n't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me.Because other than a few attention whores who will do whatever they can to get people to look at them , no one actually gives a fuck about the environment .
Kind of like yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why these trade rules aren't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me.Because other than a few attention whores who will do whatever they can to get people to look at them, no one actually gives a fuck about the environment.
Kind of like yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812924</id>
	<title>White Powder</title>
	<author>handfullofsausage</author>
	<datestamp>1263810960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hum, Let me see if I can understand this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...So we can stop Sugar coming from Latin America but not Meth and other illicit narcotics? Go figure? The Latin American Sugar Lobby must have less money than the Cartel Lobby.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hum , Let me see if I can understand this ...So we can stop Sugar coming from Latin America but not Meth and other illicit narcotics ?
Go figure ?
The Latin American Sugar Lobby must have less money than the Cartel Lobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hum, Let me see if I can understand this ...So we can stop Sugar coming from Latin America but not Meth and other illicit narcotics?
Go figure?
The Latin American Sugar Lobby must have less money than the Cartel Lobby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814332</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>BuckB</author>
	<datestamp>1263818520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the original article that spurned all of this anti-U.S. tirade
"Arguedas said another issue stalling passage of the 14th amendment is the fact that legislators are looking to pass a law that is more extensive than the requirements of the agreement."
So, after all of this, it's the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly that's the evil guy and there are 322 (and counting) posts from people that never read the 300 word original article (including me until just now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the original article that spurned all of this anti-U.S. tirade " Arguedas said another issue stalling passage of the 14th amendment is the fact that legislators are looking to pass a law that is more extensive than the requirements of the agreement .
" So , after all of this , it 's the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly that 's the evil guy and there are 322 ( and counting ) posts from people that never read the 300 word original article ( including me until just now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the original article that spurned all of this anti-U.S. tirade
"Arguedas said another issue stalling passage of the 14th amendment is the fact that legislators are looking to pass a law that is more extensive than the requirements of the agreement.
"
So, after all of this, it's the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly that's the evil guy and there are 322 (and counting) posts from people that never read the 300 word original article (including me until just now).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811922</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1263806160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually did have a pretty clear idea. Really. The rest of this post was done from memory.</p><p>My congressman and one of my two senators are both generally in the "fair trade" camp, which argues that tariff-free or low-tariff trade should be limited to countries with environmental, human rights, and labor rights laws similar to the US. My congressman especially makes a big deal about those sorts of standards being critical to preventing US jobs from being shipped overseas, and members of his union base seemed to be pretty familiar with those views when I asked some of them about it.</p><p>My other senator is pretty completely in the pocket of big business. He supports essentially no tariffs for anyone, much like he supports essentially 0 taxes for anyone. While he claims to be a supporter of deficit reduction, he had no good answers for me when I asked him about why he was supporting the Bush tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts.</p><p>But then again, I'm one of the minority of citizens who pay attention to what the guys who are supposed to represent me are actually doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually did have a pretty clear idea .
Really. The rest of this post was done from memory.My congressman and one of my two senators are both generally in the " fair trade " camp , which argues that tariff-free or low-tariff trade should be limited to countries with environmental , human rights , and labor rights laws similar to the US .
My congressman especially makes a big deal about those sorts of standards being critical to preventing US jobs from being shipped overseas , and members of his union base seemed to be pretty familiar with those views when I asked some of them about it.My other senator is pretty completely in the pocket of big business .
He supports essentially no tariffs for anyone , much like he supports essentially 0 taxes for anyone .
While he claims to be a supporter of deficit reduction , he had no good answers for me when I asked him about why he was supporting the Bush tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts.But then again , I 'm one of the minority of citizens who pay attention to what the guys who are supposed to represent me are actually doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually did have a pretty clear idea.
Really. The rest of this post was done from memory.My congressman and one of my two senators are both generally in the "fair trade" camp, which argues that tariff-free or low-tariff trade should be limited to countries with environmental, human rights, and labor rights laws similar to the US.
My congressman especially makes a big deal about those sorts of standards being critical to preventing US jobs from being shipped overseas, and members of his union base seemed to be pretty familiar with those views when I asked some of them about it.My other senator is pretty completely in the pocket of big business.
He supports essentially no tariffs for anyone, much like he supports essentially 0 taxes for anyone.
While he claims to be a supporter of deficit reduction, he had no good answers for me when I asked him about why he was supporting the Bush tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts.But then again, I'm one of the minority of citizens who pay attention to what the guys who are supposed to represent me are actually doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810994</id>
	<title>Fine then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263845040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the USA adopting Costa Rica's IP laws instead. Im betting they couldnt screw it up as bad as we have if they tried. (and Im talking REALLY TRIED)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the USA adopting Costa Rica 's IP laws instead .
Im betting they couldnt screw it up as bad as we have if they tried .
( and Im talking REALLY TRIED )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the USA adopting Costa Rica's IP laws instead.
Im betting they couldnt screw it up as bad as we have if they tried.
(and Im talking REALLY TRIED)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813360</id>
	<title>Re:US leader producer of Poor people around the wo</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263813180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You is just rigth. Nobody wants the ridiculous DMCA on your contry, this aberration is only for the US good. Off course the US needs DMCA on the whole planet, thus this embargo. Costa Rica can simply kick off US and sell your sugar to another country, the world are plenty of sugar markets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You is just rigth .
Nobody wants the ridiculous DMCA on your contry , this aberration is only for the US good .
Off course the US needs DMCA on the whole planet , thus this embargo .
Costa Rica can simply kick off US and sell your sugar to another country , the world are plenty of sugar markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You is just rigth.
Nobody wants the ridiculous DMCA on your contry, this aberration is only for the US good.
Off course the US needs DMCA on the whole planet, thus this embargo.
Costa Rica can simply kick off US and sell your sugar to another country, the world are plenty of sugar markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758</id>
	<title>Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263843780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We still have corn syrup!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have corn syrup !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still have corn syrup!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814034</id>
	<title>Not sure what the big deal is ...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1263816660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US doesn't actually buy any sugar to speak of anyway. Prohibitive import tariffs on sugar, to placate the corn lobby, is longstanding policy.</p><p>The world price of sugar has increased 300\% in the last year, to $US 50/kg, unless you live in the US<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then it's $US 75/kg. Which just happens to be both the world and US domestic price of corn-derived sugars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US does n't actually buy any sugar to speak of anyway .
Prohibitive import tariffs on sugar , to placate the corn lobby , is longstanding policy.The world price of sugar has increased 300 \ % in the last year , to $ US 50/kg , unless you live in the US ... then it 's $ US 75/kg .
Which just happens to be both the world and US domestic price of corn-derived sugars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US doesn't actually buy any sugar to speak of anyway.
Prohibitive import tariffs on sugar, to placate the corn lobby, is longstanding policy.The world price of sugar has increased 300\% in the last year, to $US 50/kg, unless you live in the US ... then it's $US 75/kg.
Which just happens to be both the world and US domestic price of corn-derived sugars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810810</id>
	<title>Not Again</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1263844140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seeing as how well it worked for Cuba, this could be a win-win!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as how well it worked for Cuba , this could be a win-win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as how well it worked for Cuba, this could be a win-win!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30825660</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>mlnease</author>
	<datestamp>1263900660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might want to add one item to your list:  Organ Damage In Rats From Monsanto GMO Corn<br>http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to add one item to your list : Organ Damage In Rats From Monsanto GMO Cornhttp : //science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to add one item to your list:  Organ Damage In Rats From Monsanto GMO Cornhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812736</id>
	<title>Americans are funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263810000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You all claim you need your guns to protect you from a corrupt government. Now you have a corrupt government and still you do nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You all claim you need your guns to protect you from a corrupt government .
Now you have a corrupt government and still you do nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You all claim you need your guns to protect you from a corrupt government.
Now you have a corrupt government and still you do nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810848</id>
	<title>Open a online betting place there and sue the us f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263844320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open a online betting place there and sue the us for blocking them us banks under the trade laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open a online betting place there and sue the us for blocking them us banks under the trade laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open a online betting place there and sue the us for blocking them us banks under the trade laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</id>
	<title>Level playing field</title>
	<author>acomj</author>
	<datestamp>1263844260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US produces IP and  wants to protect it.<br>Sugar being a tangible item is what Costa Rica produces.<br>You want to trade with the US you should play by US rules.  The US want to trade with Costa Rica we play by Costa Rican rules, thus the trade agreement.</p><p>I see nothing wrong here.</p><p>Why these trade rules aren't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US produces IP and wants to protect it.Sugar being a tangible item is what Costa Rica produces.You want to trade with the US you should play by US rules .
The US want to trade with Costa Rica we play by Costa Rican rules , thus the trade agreement.I see nothing wrong here.Why these trade rules are n't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>US produces IP and  wants to protect it.Sugar being a tangible item is what Costa Rica produces.You want to trade with the US you should play by US rules.
The US want to trade with Costa Rica we play by Costa Rican rules, thus the trade agreement.I see nothing wrong here.Why these trade rules aren't being used to enforce environmental agreements and not IP ones is somewhat beyond me.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813338</id>
	<title>Re:Americans are funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263813060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spot on, the guns are only overcompensation for other ahmm, inadequacies.</p><p>The same reason they dislike african americans.</p><p>They are weenies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot on , the guns are only overcompensation for other ahmm , inadequacies.The same reason they dislike african americans.They are weenies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot on, the guns are only overcompensation for other ahmm, inadequacies.The same reason they dislike african americans.They are weenies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814816</id>
	<title>Ever the Slashdot Contrarian</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1263822240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I'm of the opinion that the US should go light on third-world countries.  Yes, the intellectual property produced in this country benefits them (in this case, with cheap entertainment, textbooks, and pharmaceuticals).  No, Costa Rica is not paying us back for those benefits.  It's basically a free-ride for them.  However, it doesn't actually cost us anything directly.  It just costs companies a little bit of potential profit - which is small anyway, since Costa Rica is a poor country.  So, I'm of the opinion that the US should just lighten up on them and consider the benefits of our intellectual property to be part of a third-world development program.
<br> <br>
However, I do want to point out the bad logic going on in the summary and many of the comments.  If everyone is allowed to freely share intellectual property, it means that the creator cannot recoup (in money) some of the benefits they've created for the world.  The end result is that no one makes any significant effort to produce new intellectual property.  Afterall, do you want to spend millions of dollars creating a product that creates a lot of value for the world (perhaps tens of millions of dollars worth of benefit), but the lack of intellectual property laws means that you immediately go bankrupt because you can't even pay-back your development costs?
<br> <br>
Claims that "intellectual monopoly protectionism is 'the exact opposite of 'free trade'" is absurd.  Besides, I thought most Slashdotters were against the idea of selling pirated material.  The statement that "intellectual monopoly protectionism is 'the exact opposite of 'free trade'" suggests that everyone should be able to copy and sell all IP.  This means that companies like Walmart or Amazon.com should somehow be allowed to print up copies of books, movies, software, etc - and pay nothing to anybody.  Apparently, that's the very definition of "free trade" at Slashdot, as absurd as that sounds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'm of the opinion that the US should go light on third-world countries .
Yes , the intellectual property produced in this country benefits them ( in this case , with cheap entertainment , textbooks , and pharmaceuticals ) .
No , Costa Rica is not paying us back for those benefits .
It 's basically a free-ride for them .
However , it does n't actually cost us anything directly .
It just costs companies a little bit of potential profit - which is small anyway , since Costa Rica is a poor country .
So , I 'm of the opinion that the US should just lighten up on them and consider the benefits of our intellectual property to be part of a third-world development program .
However , I do want to point out the bad logic going on in the summary and many of the comments .
If everyone is allowed to freely share intellectual property , it means that the creator can not recoup ( in money ) some of the benefits they 've created for the world .
The end result is that no one makes any significant effort to produce new intellectual property .
Afterall , do you want to spend millions of dollars creating a product that creates a lot of value for the world ( perhaps tens of millions of dollars worth of benefit ) , but the lack of intellectual property laws means that you immediately go bankrupt because you ca n't even pay-back your development costs ?
Claims that " intellectual monopoly protectionism is 'the exact opposite of 'free trade ' " is absurd .
Besides , I thought most Slashdotters were against the idea of selling pirated material .
The statement that " intellectual monopoly protectionism is 'the exact opposite of 'free trade ' " suggests that everyone should be able to copy and sell all IP .
This means that companies like Walmart or Amazon.com should somehow be allowed to print up copies of books , movies , software , etc - and pay nothing to anybody .
Apparently , that 's the very definition of " free trade " at Slashdot , as absurd as that sounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'm of the opinion that the US should go light on third-world countries.
Yes, the intellectual property produced in this country benefits them (in this case, with cheap entertainment, textbooks, and pharmaceuticals).
No, Costa Rica is not paying us back for those benefits.
It's basically a free-ride for them.
However, it doesn't actually cost us anything directly.
It just costs companies a little bit of potential profit - which is small anyway, since Costa Rica is a poor country.
So, I'm of the opinion that the US should just lighten up on them and consider the benefits of our intellectual property to be part of a third-world development program.
However, I do want to point out the bad logic going on in the summary and many of the comments.
If everyone is allowed to freely share intellectual property, it means that the creator cannot recoup (in money) some of the benefits they've created for the world.
The end result is that no one makes any significant effort to produce new intellectual property.
Afterall, do you want to spend millions of dollars creating a product that creates a lot of value for the world (perhaps tens of millions of dollars worth of benefit), but the lack of intellectual property laws means that you immediately go bankrupt because you can't even pay-back your development costs?
Claims that "intellectual monopoly protectionism is 'the exact opposite of 'free trade'" is absurd.
Besides, I thought most Slashdotters were against the idea of selling pirated material.
The statement that "intellectual monopoly protectionism is 'the exact opposite of 'free trade'" suggests that everyone should be able to copy and sell all IP.
This means that companies like Walmart or Amazon.com should somehow be allowed to print up copies of books, movies, software, etc - and pay nothing to anybody.
Apparently, that's the very definition of "free trade" at Slashdot, as absurd as that sounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811852</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new, really.</title>
	<author>MattSausage</author>
	<datestamp>1263805860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummmm.. isn't the point of CAFTA in fact there will be *free trade* between the two countries? And doesn't that mean (and I am not an expert so consider this an actual question) that tariffs and trade restrictions are agreed to be small to non-existent on both accounts?  If we are using tariffs and trade restrictions, wouldn't we be breaking the treaty?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummmm.. is n't the point of CAFTA in fact there will be * free trade * between the two countries ?
And does n't that mean ( and I am not an expert so consider this an actual question ) that tariffs and trade restrictions are agreed to be small to non-existent on both accounts ?
If we are using tariffs and trade restrictions , would n't we be breaking the treaty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummmm.. isn't the point of CAFTA in fact there will be *free trade* between the two countries?
And doesn't that mean (and I am not an expert so consider this an actual question) that tariffs and trade restrictions are agreed to be small to non-existent on both accounts?
If we are using tariffs and trade restrictions, wouldn't we be breaking the treaty?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813664</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263814500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should probably be more about breathing <i>down</i> the necks of politicians.  However, mandatory tracheotomies for all politicians does sound like a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should probably be more about breathing down the necks of politicians .
However , mandatory tracheotomies for all politicians does sound like a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should probably be more about breathing down the necks of politicians.
However, mandatory tracheotomies for all politicians does sound like a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810858</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1263844380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of makes you wonder how much of the presentation the lobbyists did included the HFCS and corn production losses to the amount of sugar being imported...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of makes you wonder how much of the presentation the lobbyists did included the HFCS and corn production losses to the amount of sugar being imported.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of makes you wonder how much of the presentation the lobbyists did included the HFCS and corn production losses to the amount of sugar being imported...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814812</id>
	<title>Re:Sugar middlemen...</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263822240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what any country can do. Sell their own supplies of sugar, and buy stuff from Costa. In fact, this is probably already what happens, in a more round about way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what any country can do .
Sell their own supplies of sugar , and buy stuff from Costa .
In fact , this is probably already what happens , in a more round about way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what any country can do.
Sell their own supplies of sugar, and buy stuff from Costa.
In fact, this is probably already what happens, in a more round about way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811208</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade not free property</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>IP laws are a construct of the state.  They artificially create a good that otherwise wouldn't exist.  Free markets work great when you need to distribute a limited resource.  They don't work so well when an artificial rule is used to keep an otherwise free and plentiful resource arbitrarily scarce to line the pockets of those with power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP laws are a construct of the state .
They artificially create a good that otherwise would n't exist .
Free markets work great when you need to distribute a limited resource .
They do n't work so well when an artificial rule is used to keep an otherwise free and plentiful resource arbitrarily scarce to line the pockets of those with power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP laws are a construct of the state.
They artificially create a good that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Free markets work great when you need to distribute a limited resource.
They don't work so well when an artificial rule is used to keep an otherwise free and plentiful resource arbitrarily scarce to line the pockets of those with power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Raptoer</author>
	<datestamp>1263810060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignoring contaminates, HFCS used in the majority of products is a mixture of about 50\% glucose and 50\% fructose (Both monosacharides). Sucrose (table sugar) is a disacharide made up of one glucose and one fructose bonded. Our body ends up having to break up the sucrose into glucose and fructose in order to process it, so mostly there is no difference between the two.</p><p>There are three possible reasons that HFCS is worse than table sugar<br>- HFCS doesn't require sucrase (the enzyme that breaks sucrose into the two monosacharides). This means that a person could ingest the same amounts of HFCS and sucrose, but get more energy out of the HFCS, because he doesn't have enough sucrase to break all of the sucrose up. I have no idea what the amount of sucrose we can process at once is though.</p><p>-HFCS has to go through more chemical processing than table sugar, leading to the potentiality of additional contaminates.</p><p>-Finally HFCS is CHEAP. That is the main difference, a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring contaminates , HFCS used in the majority of products is a mixture of about 50 \ % glucose and 50 \ % fructose ( Both monosacharides ) .
Sucrose ( table sugar ) is a disacharide made up of one glucose and one fructose bonded .
Our body ends up having to break up the sucrose into glucose and fructose in order to process it , so mostly there is no difference between the two.There are three possible reasons that HFCS is worse than table sugar- HFCS does n't require sucrase ( the enzyme that breaks sucrose into the two monosacharides ) .
This means that a person could ingest the same amounts of HFCS and sucrose , but get more energy out of the HFCS , because he does n't have enough sucrase to break all of the sucrose up .
I have no idea what the amount of sucrose we can process at once is though.-HFCS has to go through more chemical processing than table sugar , leading to the potentiality of additional contaminates.-Finally HFCS is CHEAP .
That is the main difference , a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring contaminates, HFCS used in the majority of products is a mixture of about 50\% glucose and 50\% fructose (Both monosacharides).
Sucrose (table sugar) is a disacharide made up of one glucose and one fructose bonded.
Our body ends up having to break up the sucrose into glucose and fructose in order to process it, so mostly there is no difference between the two.There are three possible reasons that HFCS is worse than table sugar- HFCS doesn't require sucrase (the enzyme that breaks sucrose into the two monosacharides).
This means that a person could ingest the same amounts of HFCS and sucrose, but get more energy out of the HFCS, because he doesn't have enough sucrase to break all of the sucrose up.
I have no idea what the amount of sucrose we can process at once is though.-HFCS has to go through more chemical processing than table sugar, leading to the potentiality of additional contaminates.-Finally HFCS is CHEAP.
That is the main difference, a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812906</id>
	<title>Re:Sugar middlemen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263810840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S. sugar lobby would stop you before you would make it that far. To think they don't 'control' importation as well is mighty naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. sugar lobby would stop you before you would make it that far .
To think they do n't 'control ' importation as well is mighty naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. sugar lobby would stop you before you would make it that far.
To think they don't 'control' importation as well is mighty naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026</id>
	<title>Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263845220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many of you know, specifically, your elected representatives' views on international trade?</p><p>And how many of you plan to claim you did, but really didn't,and had to look it up when I called you on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of you know , specifically , your elected representatives ' views on international trade ? And how many of you plan to claim you did , but really did n't,and had to look it up when I called you on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of you know, specifically, your elected representatives' views on international trade?And how many of you plan to claim you did, but really didn't,and had to look it up when I called you on it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814130</id>
	<title>Why Sugar you said?</title>
	<author>Mr. Daemon</author>
	<datestamp>1263817200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is the US using sugar instead of a bigger product for Costa Rica, like coffee or bananas?</p><p>I'll tell you why, there's a controlling elite in Costa Rica that has managed the country for a few years already, and the head of this elite is the current President and his brother, Oscar and Rodrigo Arias, which in turn own the biggest sugar cane fields in the country.  So the attack is directly to their pockets and so they move all their influence to enforce the IP law, that includes stupid rules as that every restaurant or public place will have to pay royalty to the RIAA equivalent in our country if they play the radio to keep their customers entertained!</p><p>The worst case is that the oposition in our country is not well organized nor has the intellectual strength to fight this kind of laws, plus the elite has majority in congress, so the IP laws have some resistance, but they have not been approved because congress is to darn slow to do anything, so we'll get them eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the US using sugar instead of a bigger product for Costa Rica , like coffee or bananas ? I 'll tell you why , there 's a controlling elite in Costa Rica that has managed the country for a few years already , and the head of this elite is the current President and his brother , Oscar and Rodrigo Arias , which in turn own the biggest sugar cane fields in the country .
So the attack is directly to their pockets and so they move all their influence to enforce the IP law , that includes stupid rules as that every restaurant or public place will have to pay royalty to the RIAA equivalent in our country if they play the radio to keep their customers entertained ! The worst case is that the oposition in our country is not well organized nor has the intellectual strength to fight this kind of laws , plus the elite has majority in congress , so the IP laws have some resistance , but they have not been approved because congress is to darn slow to do anything , so we 'll get them eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the US using sugar instead of a bigger product for Costa Rica, like coffee or bananas?I'll tell you why, there's a controlling elite in Costa Rica that has managed the country for a few years already, and the head of this elite is the current President and his brother, Oscar and Rodrigo Arias, which in turn own the biggest sugar cane fields in the country.
So the attack is directly to their pockets and so they move all their influence to enforce the IP law, that includes stupid rules as that every restaurant or public place will have to pay royalty to the RIAA equivalent in our country if they play the radio to keep their customers entertained!The worst case is that the oposition in our country is not well organized nor has the intellectual strength to fight this kind of laws, plus the elite has majority in congress, so the IP laws have some resistance, but they have not been approved because congress is to darn slow to do anything, so we'll get them eventually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811102</id>
	<title>Re:Sugar</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1263845640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>High Fructose Corn Chocolate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>High Fructose Corn Chocolate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High Fructose Corn Chocolate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30827722</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade not free property</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1263915600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IP laws are a construct of the state.  They artificially create a <b>monopoly</b> that otherwise wouldn't exist.</p></div><p>That's better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP laws are a construct of the state .
They artificially create a monopoly that otherwise would n't exist.That 's better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP laws are a construct of the state.
They artificially create a monopoly that otherwise wouldn't exist.That's better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811218</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We still have corn syrup!</i></p><p>There's also sugar production from beets (in California).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have corn syrup ! There 's also sugar production from beets ( in California ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still have corn syrup!There's also sugar production from beets (in California).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811962</id>
	<title>Maybe this is part of the Health Care Plan</title>
	<author>Xphile101361</author>
	<datestamp>1263806340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eliminating sugar would solve a bunch of the US's health problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eliminating sugar would solve a bunch of the US 's health problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eliminating sugar would solve a bunch of the US's health problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812512</id>
	<title>Change and Hope, Hope and Change</title>
	<author>PinchDuck</author>
	<datestamp>1263809040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do it my way or I'll bash in your brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it my way or I 'll bash in your brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it my way or I'll bash in your brains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815370</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1263827460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Finally HFCS is CHEAP. That is the main difference, a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty low</i></p><p>HFCS is "CHEAP" because of corn subsidies. So its not really cheap, you are just paying the difference on your taxes instead of at the super market. Meanwhile, actual sugar can't really compete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally HFCS is CHEAP .
That is the main difference , a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty lowHFCS is " CHEAP " because of corn subsidies .
So its not really cheap , you are just paying the difference on your taxes instead of at the super market .
Meanwhile , actual sugar ca n't really compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally HFCS is CHEAP.
That is the main difference, a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty lowHFCS is "CHEAP" because of corn subsidies.
So its not really cheap, you are just paying the difference on your taxes instead of at the super market.
Meanwhile, actual sugar can't really compete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812422</id>
	<title>Re:Color me underwhelmed.</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1263808440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because thats the way it works, the big guy sets the rules.</p></div><p>I hear that's why the French nobility and the English king squished some small rebellions in the late 17-hundreds.</p><p>Wait, no?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because thats the way it works , the big guy sets the rules.I hear that 's why the French nobility and the English king squished some small rebellions in the late 17-hundreds.Wait , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because thats the way it works, the big guy sets the rules.I hear that's why the French nobility and the English king squished some small rebellions in the late 17-hundreds.Wait, no?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817540</id>
	<title>Re:Level playing field</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1263899760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it is because we are too busy using IP laws to break tariffs to be concerned as to whether or not Monsanto will use eco-friendly farming techniques once they have taken over. Same thing happened to Haiti a few decades ago.....And people wonder why Haitians were living in such poor homes! Kind of hard to worry about building codes after a multi-national mega-corp comes in and steals your ability to sell your crops by selling theirs at 1/100th of the price of yours.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is because we are too busy using IP laws to break tariffs to be concerned as to whether or not Monsanto will use eco-friendly farming techniques once they have taken over .
Same thing happened to Haiti a few decades ago.....And people wonder why Haitians were living in such poor homes !
Kind of hard to worry about building codes after a multi-national mega-corp comes in and steals your ability to sell your crops by selling theirs at 1/100th of the price of yours .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is because we are too busy using IP laws to break tariffs to be concerned as to whether or not Monsanto will use eco-friendly farming techniques once they have taken over.
Same thing happened to Haiti a few decades ago.....And people wonder why Haitians were living in such poor homes!
Kind of hard to worry about building codes after a multi-national mega-corp comes in and steals your ability to sell your crops by selling theirs at 1/100th of the price of yours.
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816786</id>
	<title>countries like Europe...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, that country Europe, they're all fucking 'tards, man, they talk like fags, and their shit's all fucked up</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , that country Europe , they 're all fucking 'tards , man , they talk like fags , and their shit 's all fucked up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, that country Europe, they're all fucking 'tards, man, they talk like fags, and their shit's all fucked up</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812824</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263810480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Score:5, interesting...</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>countries like Europe and America (and others) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles, and enforcing them on others.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>countries like Europe...</p></div><p>I guess you are an american.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Score : 5 , interesting...countries like Europe and America ( and others ) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles , and enforcing them on others.countries like Europe...I guess you are an american .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Score:5, interesting...countries like Europe and America (and others) have strengthened their economies by violating free market principles, and enforcing them on others.countries like Europe...I guess you are an american.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815406</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1263827820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Finally HFCS is CHEAP</p></div></blockquote><p>It's actually more expensive than imported sugar would be without the tarrif.  What has really happened is that local sugar has taken full advantage of the protected market and bumped the prices up to more than the market could bear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally HFCS is CHEAPIt 's actually more expensive than imported sugar would be without the tarrif .
What has really happened is that local sugar has taken full advantage of the protected market and bumped the prices up to more than the market could bear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally HFCS is CHEAPIt's actually more expensive than imported sugar would be without the tarrif.
What has really happened is that local sugar has taken full advantage of the protected market and bumped the prices up to more than the market could bear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813080</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263811800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too true.  In the 19th century, the US unapologetically freely used and improved on many ideas that may have first originated in Europe.  Britain, the superpower of those days, especially protested, but largely in vain.  One result was more rapid advancement.

</p><p>In one way it was sometimes easier to tell that a particular idea had been thought of independently, as before the 1850's and the Atlantic cable, there was no way to communicate over sea more quickly than ships could sail.  18 days was about as fast as the Atlantic could be crossed by sail, more typical was 35 days.  Steamers could do it in 5 days but they weren't in use for transatlantic service before the 1840s.  The same idea appearing on both sides of the Atlantic within a month or two could very plausibly have been independently discovered.  Would be interesting to see, if possible, a study that uses this massive communication delay to determine how novel the average patent really was by surveying the number of such independent advances.  Pre Columbus comparisons show that quite a number of vital technologies were not novel.  The people of both landmasses independently came up with agriculture, fishing, writing, numbering systems and basic math, systems of government, and engineering accomplishments such as irrigation canals, pyramids, fortifications, and other buildings, boats, metalworking, bridges, and so on.  Evolution also shows this, with things like remarkably similar eyes independently evolving in mammals and octopuses.

</p><p>Hollywood, too.  I've heard it was originally set up to get far away from Broadway and their control and strangulation of artistic endeavor through copyright enforcement, labor and facilities control, and refusal to embrace new technologies.  That's why Hollywood makes movies and Broadway really doesn't, and why Hollywood is on the other side of the US-- the further it was from Broadway, the less Broadway could interfere.  Just one of the examples of one of the biggest attractions of the early American West: freedom.  Few others around who could or would tell a person something isn't allowed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too true .
In the 19th century , the US unapologetically freely used and improved on many ideas that may have first originated in Europe .
Britain , the superpower of those days , especially protested , but largely in vain .
One result was more rapid advancement .
In one way it was sometimes easier to tell that a particular idea had been thought of independently , as before the 1850 's and the Atlantic cable , there was no way to communicate over sea more quickly than ships could sail .
18 days was about as fast as the Atlantic could be crossed by sail , more typical was 35 days .
Steamers could do it in 5 days but they were n't in use for transatlantic service before the 1840s .
The same idea appearing on both sides of the Atlantic within a month or two could very plausibly have been independently discovered .
Would be interesting to see , if possible , a study that uses this massive communication delay to determine how novel the average patent really was by surveying the number of such independent advances .
Pre Columbus comparisons show that quite a number of vital technologies were not novel .
The people of both landmasses independently came up with agriculture , fishing , writing , numbering systems and basic math , systems of government , and engineering accomplishments such as irrigation canals , pyramids , fortifications , and other buildings , boats , metalworking , bridges , and so on .
Evolution also shows this , with things like remarkably similar eyes independently evolving in mammals and octopuses .
Hollywood , too .
I 've heard it was originally set up to get far away from Broadway and their control and strangulation of artistic endeavor through copyright enforcement , labor and facilities control , and refusal to embrace new technologies .
That 's why Hollywood makes movies and Broadway really does n't , and why Hollywood is on the other side of the US-- the further it was from Broadway , the less Broadway could interfere .
Just one of the examples of one of the biggest attractions of the early American West : freedom .
Few others around who could or would tell a person something is n't allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too true.
In the 19th century, the US unapologetically freely used and improved on many ideas that may have first originated in Europe.
Britain, the superpower of those days, especially protested, but largely in vain.
One result was more rapid advancement.
In one way it was sometimes easier to tell that a particular idea had been thought of independently, as before the 1850's and the Atlantic cable, there was no way to communicate over sea more quickly than ships could sail.
18 days was about as fast as the Atlantic could be crossed by sail, more typical was 35 days.
Steamers could do it in 5 days but they weren't in use for transatlantic service before the 1840s.
The same idea appearing on both sides of the Atlantic within a month or two could very plausibly have been independently discovered.
Would be interesting to see, if possible, a study that uses this massive communication delay to determine how novel the average patent really was by surveying the number of such independent advances.
Pre Columbus comparisons show that quite a number of vital technologies were not novel.
The people of both landmasses independently came up with agriculture, fishing, writing, numbering systems and basic math, systems of government, and engineering accomplishments such as irrigation canals, pyramids, fortifications, and other buildings, boats, metalworking, bridges, and so on.
Evolution also shows this, with things like remarkably similar eyes independently evolving in mammals and octopuses.
Hollywood, too.
I've heard it was originally set up to get far away from Broadway and their control and strangulation of artistic endeavor through copyright enforcement, labor and facilities control, and refusal to embrace new technologies.
That's why Hollywood makes movies and Broadway really doesn't, and why Hollywood is on the other side of the US-- the further it was from Broadway, the less Broadway could interfere.
Just one of the examples of one of the biggest attractions of the early American West: freedom.
Few others around who could or would tell a person something isn't allowed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810806</id>
	<title>Nothing new, really.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263844080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't think of many countries that don't use tariffs or trade restrictions to promote their own national interests in some way.  It may be stupid and benefit no one in the end, but it's still within a nation's rights to take their ball and go home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of many countries that do n't use tariffs or trade restrictions to promote their own national interests in some way .
It may be stupid and benefit no one in the end , but it 's still within a nation 's rights to take their ball and go home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of many countries that don't use tariffs or trade restrictions to promote their own national interests in some way.
It may be stupid and benefit no one in the end, but it's still within a nation's rights to take their ball and go home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821108</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263924840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That is the main difference, a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty low.</p></div><p>
See, this is the problem I see. Since it is so cheap, food makers put HFCS in everything. Seriously, spend an afternoon reading the ingredients list of most items at a common grocery store. HFCS is in just about everything nowaday to make it taste better (subjective). That means that in any given meal, a combination of various products, you get a rather large dosing of HFCS. If this happened every once in a great bit, that wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, it makes it very hard to take HFCS in in small levels and, as such, a large amount of Americans end up processing a lot of monosacharides in a given day. That's the real problem with HFCS. It's not that HFCS is, by it's very nature, bad. The problem is that it is everywhere. Finding food in America without it (or at least in California) theses days requires you to fork over some extra cash. I would wager that's a significant part of the reason why American obesity and diabetes levels are so high there days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is the main difference , a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty low .
See , this is the problem I see .
Since it is so cheap , food makers put HFCS in everything .
Seriously , spend an afternoon reading the ingredients list of most items at a common grocery store .
HFCS is in just about everything nowaday to make it taste better ( subjective ) .
That means that in any given meal , a combination of various products , you get a rather large dosing of HFCS .
If this happened every once in a great bit , that would n't be so bad .
Unfortunately , it makes it very hard to take HFCS in in small levels and , as such , a large amount of Americans end up processing a lot of monosacharides in a given day .
That 's the real problem with HFCS .
It 's not that HFCS is , by it 's very nature , bad .
The problem is that it is everywhere .
Finding food in America without it ( or at least in California ) theses days requires you to fork over some extra cash .
I would wager that 's a significant part of the reason why American obesity and diabetes levels are so high there days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is the main difference, a food maker can easily put more in to make their product more appealing why leaving the price pretty low.
See, this is the problem I see.
Since it is so cheap, food makers put HFCS in everything.
Seriously, spend an afternoon reading the ingredients list of most items at a common grocery store.
HFCS is in just about everything nowaday to make it taste better (subjective).
That means that in any given meal, a combination of various products, you get a rather large dosing of HFCS.
If this happened every once in a great bit, that wouldn't be so bad.
Unfortunately, it makes it very hard to take HFCS in in small levels and, as such, a large amount of Americans end up processing a lot of monosacharides in a given day.
That's the real problem with HFCS.
It's not that HFCS is, by it's very nature, bad.
The problem is that it is everywhere.
Finding food in America without it (or at least in California) theses days requires you to fork over some extra cash.
I would wager that's a significant part of the reason why American obesity and diabetes levels are so high there days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811938</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1263806220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep in mind that decisions on whether to take action against other nations' failures to uphold their treaty obligations is primarily a function of the Executive Branch (in this case, by the Department of Commerce).  So, if you don't like it, you can complain to President Obama or his Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that decisions on whether to take action against other nations ' failures to uphold their treaty obligations is primarily a function of the Executive Branch ( in this case , by the Department of Commerce ) .
So , if you do n't like it , you can complain to President Obama or his Secretary of Commerce , Gary Locke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that decisions on whether to take action against other nations' failures to uphold their treaty obligations is primarily a function of the Executive Branch (in this case, by the Department of Commerce).
So, if you don't like it, you can complain to President Obama or his Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813736</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263814980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Surely you see the benefits of trade</p></div></blockquote><p>You're talking about hypothetical trade, whereas you should be looking at reality. I can see the possible benefits of the free market, except trade as it stands has not become more free, and all have not benefited.</p><p>One historical example: the industrial revolution was built upon cheap cotton, which came from the US. The "vast, fertile land" was cleared by wiping out indigenous inhabitants, and it was not the market that kept cotton cheap, but primarily slavery. And other competitors, such as advanced textile industries in India, were destroyed, either through British force or protectionism, while its resources were sent to England. Hardly beneficial to everyone in this instance. Hell, India was highly advanced in steel manufacture, and was producing iron in such quantities that it rivalled all of Europe, and was producing locomotives competitively, but that too was wiped out by the British. Egypt was also blocked by the British from any independent development during this period.</p><p>The only reason England ever adopted the "free market" was after it had reached market dominance through such methods.</p><blockquote><div><p>Do you really think it was tariffs that made America rich</p></div></blockquote><p>Tariffs alone? Probably not, but it played a vital role in getting things off the ground. New England followed the same path of protectionism (high tariffs) against British textiles that Britain imposed on India, which essentially saved around half of their textile industry, which in turn had a massive impact on its industrial growth. The same applies to the steel industry in the United States, which essentially thrived because tariffs blocked British steel from competing.</p><p>Like England, America only adopted the free market doctrine once it was the most powerful and richest country in the world. Only then does free trade become appealing, because you can expect to win (no doubt China plans on following a similar pattern). Even then, the US has interfered greatly in the workings of the free market over the last several decades e.g. using aid to subsidize shipping and agriculture, as well as to undercut competitors. US intervention in South America is also instructive when demonstrating what little regard the US has for the free market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you see the benefits of tradeYou 're talking about hypothetical trade , whereas you should be looking at reality .
I can see the possible benefits of the free market , except trade as it stands has not become more free , and all have not benefited.One historical example : the industrial revolution was built upon cheap cotton , which came from the US .
The " vast , fertile land " was cleared by wiping out indigenous inhabitants , and it was not the market that kept cotton cheap , but primarily slavery .
And other competitors , such as advanced textile industries in India , were destroyed , either through British force or protectionism , while its resources were sent to England .
Hardly beneficial to everyone in this instance .
Hell , India was highly advanced in steel manufacture , and was producing iron in such quantities that it rivalled all of Europe , and was producing locomotives competitively , but that too was wiped out by the British .
Egypt was also blocked by the British from any independent development during this period.The only reason England ever adopted the " free market " was after it had reached market dominance through such methods.Do you really think it was tariffs that made America richTariffs alone ?
Probably not , but it played a vital role in getting things off the ground .
New England followed the same path of protectionism ( high tariffs ) against British textiles that Britain imposed on India , which essentially saved around half of their textile industry , which in turn had a massive impact on its industrial growth .
The same applies to the steel industry in the United States , which essentially thrived because tariffs blocked British steel from competing.Like England , America only adopted the free market doctrine once it was the most powerful and richest country in the world .
Only then does free trade become appealing , because you can expect to win ( no doubt China plans on following a similar pattern ) .
Even then , the US has interfered greatly in the workings of the free market over the last several decades e.g .
using aid to subsidize shipping and agriculture , as well as to undercut competitors .
US intervention in South America is also instructive when demonstrating what little regard the US has for the free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you see the benefits of tradeYou're talking about hypothetical trade, whereas you should be looking at reality.
I can see the possible benefits of the free market, except trade as it stands has not become more free, and all have not benefited.One historical example: the industrial revolution was built upon cheap cotton, which came from the US.
The "vast, fertile land" was cleared by wiping out indigenous inhabitants, and it was not the market that kept cotton cheap, but primarily slavery.
And other competitors, such as advanced textile industries in India, were destroyed, either through British force or protectionism, while its resources were sent to England.
Hardly beneficial to everyone in this instance.
Hell, India was highly advanced in steel manufacture, and was producing iron in such quantities that it rivalled all of Europe, and was producing locomotives competitively, but that too was wiped out by the British.
Egypt was also blocked by the British from any independent development during this period.The only reason England ever adopted the "free market" was after it had reached market dominance through such methods.Do you really think it was tariffs that made America richTariffs alone?
Probably not, but it played a vital role in getting things off the ground.
New England followed the same path of protectionism (high tariffs) against British textiles that Britain imposed on India, which essentially saved around half of their textile industry, which in turn had a massive impact on its industrial growth.
The same applies to the steel industry in the United States, which essentially thrived because tariffs blocked British steel from competing.Like England, America only adopted the free market doctrine once it was the most powerful and richest country in the world.
Only then does free trade become appealing, because you can expect to win (no doubt China plans on following a similar pattern).
Even then, the US has interfered greatly in the workings of the free market over the last several decades e.g.
using aid to subsidize shipping and agriculture, as well as to undercut competitors.
US intervention in South America is also instructive when demonstrating what little regard the US has for the free market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811068</id>
	<title>Re:Free trade not free property</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263845460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If laws differed between member nations then one nation would be able to use intellectual property to manufacture their goods which was prohibited by other members thus creating an unfair advantage.</i></p><p>That's only unfair if the other nations' laws are themselves fair. And of course, what's fair can vary quite a lot depending on one's circumstances. You're essentially suggesting the equivalent of a flat tax, where everyone is taxed the same amount in currency, regardless of ability to pay or the ratio of one's overall income or wealth to the amount of the tax. It's generally accepted that progressive taxes are more fair, where the amount you pay is proportional to the amount you have and can afford. Why shouldn't we try a similar model here? Given that copyright laws govern importation already, which avoids the problem of arbitrage, what's so bad about this? Further, shouldn't each nation strive to enact laws that best serve its own people? I'd be happy to have Costa Rica decide for itself what sorts of copyright laws would best serve Costa Ricans, so long as the US was similarly free of pernicious influences that result in a law that isn't as good for its people as possible, whether those influences are from without or within.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If laws differed between member nations then one nation would be able to use intellectual property to manufacture their goods which was prohibited by other members thus creating an unfair advantage.That 's only unfair if the other nations ' laws are themselves fair .
And of course , what 's fair can vary quite a lot depending on one 's circumstances .
You 're essentially suggesting the equivalent of a flat tax , where everyone is taxed the same amount in currency , regardless of ability to pay or the ratio of one 's overall income or wealth to the amount of the tax .
It 's generally accepted that progressive taxes are more fair , where the amount you pay is proportional to the amount you have and can afford .
Why should n't we try a similar model here ?
Given that copyright laws govern importation already , which avoids the problem of arbitrage , what 's so bad about this ?
Further , should n't each nation strive to enact laws that best serve its own people ?
I 'd be happy to have Costa Rica decide for itself what sorts of copyright laws would best serve Costa Ricans , so long as the US was similarly free of pernicious influences that result in a law that is n't as good for its people as possible , whether those influences are from without or within .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If laws differed between member nations then one nation would be able to use intellectual property to manufacture their goods which was prohibited by other members thus creating an unfair advantage.That's only unfair if the other nations' laws are themselves fair.
And of course, what's fair can vary quite a lot depending on one's circumstances.
You're essentially suggesting the equivalent of a flat tax, where everyone is taxed the same amount in currency, regardless of ability to pay or the ratio of one's overall income or wealth to the amount of the tax.
It's generally accepted that progressive taxes are more fair, where the amount you pay is proportional to the amount you have and can afford.
Why shouldn't we try a similar model here?
Given that copyright laws govern importation already, which avoids the problem of arbitrage, what's so bad about this?
Further, shouldn't each nation strive to enact laws that best serve its own people?
I'd be happy to have Costa Rica decide for itself what sorts of copyright laws would best serve Costa Ricans, so long as the US was similarly free of pernicious influences that result in a law that isn't as good for its people as possible, whether those influences are from without or within.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810872</id>
	<title>Maybe the government should have</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1263844440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually read and thought about the damn agreement before signing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually read and thought about the damn agreement before signing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually read and thought about the damn agreement before signing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811292</id>
	<title>Re:Sugar middlemen...</title>
	<author>The FBI</author>
	<datestamp>1263846600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to tap into your creative mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to tap into your creative mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to tap into your creative mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815200</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263825360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We still have corn syrup!</i> </p><p>Interesting side note:</p><p>I really like Ocean Spray ruby grapefruit juice. It turns out they put it out in two nearly identical bottles.</p><p>One says "No HFCS or artificial flavor". The other says (at least), "No added sugar".</p><p>The difference -- the first sweetens with "cane or beet sugar", the second sweetens with apple juice.</p><p>I ddon't think I could tell the difference without a side-by-side tasting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have corn syrup !
Interesting side note : I really like Ocean Spray ruby grapefruit juice .
It turns out they put it out in two nearly identical bottles.One says " No HFCS or artificial flavor " .
The other says ( at least ) , " No added sugar " .The difference -- the first sweetens with " cane or beet sugar " , the second sweetens with apple juice.I ddo n't think I could tell the difference without a side-by-side tasting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still have corn syrup!
Interesting side note:I really like Ocean Spray ruby grapefruit juice.
It turns out they put it out in two nearly identical bottles.One says "No HFCS or artificial flavor".
The other says (at least), "No added sugar".The difference -- the first sweetens with "cane or beet sugar", the second sweetens with apple juice.I ddon't think I could tell the difference without a side-by-side tasting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784</id>
	<title>Re:Never Fear!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263805620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you brought it up.

I actually saw a High Fructose Corn Syrup advertisement of all things, on the Food Network the other day. Maybe I'm behind the times, but pushing HFCS seems pretty much as irresponsible as pushing nicotine at least.  And it wasn't that they were advertising, "Hey buy our stuff!" no, the ad showed one mother pouring what appeared to be Kool-Aid for a bunch of kids, then another mother coming up to say "Hey! Stop that, HFCS is bad!" the other lady goes "Why?,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.......... the first lady stares like an idiot. And then kool-aid lady goes into a spiel about how it's made from CORN, which is natural, and can't be that bad, and everything is fine in moderation, and they both have a big heaping glass of High fructose corn syrup.

Something seems distinctly...off... about that commercial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you brought it up .
I actually saw a High Fructose Corn Syrup advertisement of all things , on the Food Network the other day .
Maybe I 'm behind the times , but pushing HFCS seems pretty much as irresponsible as pushing nicotine at least .
And it was n't that they were advertising , " Hey buy our stuff !
" no , the ad showed one mother pouring what appeared to be Kool-Aid for a bunch of kids , then another mother coming up to say " Hey !
Stop that , HFCS is bad !
" the other lady goes " Why ? , .......... the first lady stares like an idiot .
And then kool-aid lady goes into a spiel about how it 's made from CORN , which is natural , and ca n't be that bad , and everything is fine in moderation , and they both have a big heaping glass of High fructose corn syrup .
Something seems distinctly...off... about that commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you brought it up.
I actually saw a High Fructose Corn Syrup advertisement of all things, on the Food Network the other day.
Maybe I'm behind the times, but pushing HFCS seems pretty much as irresponsible as pushing nicotine at least.
And it wasn't that they were advertising, "Hey buy our stuff!
" no, the ad showed one mother pouring what appeared to be Kool-Aid for a bunch of kids, then another mother coming up to say "Hey!
Stop that, HFCS is bad!
" the other lady goes "Why?, .......... the first lady stares like an idiot.
And then kool-aid lady goes into a spiel about how it's made from CORN, which is natural, and can't be that bad, and everything is fine in moderation, and they both have a big heaping glass of High fructose corn syrup.
Something seems distinctly...off... about that commercial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815066</id>
	<title>wtf???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263824040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do my posts keep getting deleted on slashdot???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do my posts keep getting deleted on slashdot ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do my posts keep getting deleted on slashdot??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811332</id>
	<title>Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263846660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Canadian, and I say send your sugar here and let's get rid of all the US corn-lobbyist-supported b.s. "corn syrop" and other related junk. Real sugar seems to actually be more healthy, and I'd be happy to see more of the real thing available here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Canadian , and I say send your sugar here and let 's get rid of all the US corn-lobbyist-supported b.s .
" corn syrop " and other related junk .
Real sugar seems to actually be more healthy , and I 'd be happy to see more of the real thing available here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Canadian, and I say send your sugar here and let's get rid of all the US corn-lobbyist-supported b.s.
"corn syrop" and other related junk.
Real sugar seems to actually be more healthy, and I'd be happy to see more of the real thing available here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812220</id>
	<title>Re:And the sad thing is....</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1263807480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And the sad thing is that if Costa Rica tells us to go fsck ourselves, while it will hurt Costa Rica's economy, all it will do here is help sell even more High Fructose Corn Syrup and help the corn lobby here.</p></div><p>Hmmm.... I think it means the US sugar producers will benefit. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Production" title="wikipedia.org">The US is one of the top 10 producers of sugar cane.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the sad thing is that if Costa Rica tells us to go fsck ourselves , while it will hurt Costa Rica 's economy , all it will do here is help sell even more High Fructose Corn Syrup and help the corn lobby here.Hmmm.... I think it means the US sugar producers will benefit .
The US is one of the top 10 producers of sugar cane .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the sad thing is that if Costa Rica tells us to go fsck ourselves, while it will hurt Costa Rica's economy, all it will do here is help sell even more High Fructose Corn Syrup and help the corn lobby here.Hmmm.... I think it means the US sugar producers will benefit.
The US is one of the top 10 producers of sugar cane.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812642</id>
	<title>Re:"IP La"</title>
	<author>Austerity Empowers</author>
	<datestamp>1263809700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As nerds our primary useful output is intellectual property, for many of us our significant consumption is intellectual property, and the focus of our work is intellectual property. It kind of does make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As nerds our primary useful output is intellectual property , for many of us our significant consumption is intellectual property , and the focus of our work is intellectual property .
It kind of does make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As nerds our primary useful output is intellectual property, for many of us our significant consumption is intellectual property, and the focus of our work is intellectual property.
It kind of does make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817432</id>
	<title>Since you brought up Aspartame....</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1263897720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you brought up Aspartame....</p><p><a href="http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Aspartame-Adverse-Reactions-1993.htm" title="mindfully.org">http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Aspartame-Adverse-Reactions-1993.htm</a> [mindfully.org]</p><p>This has been well known in psychiatric social workers circles for many years (I have had two relatives working in the field).  The first year "Tab" with Aspartame came out, and was picked up by a population that typically has body image problems in the first place, ad so immediately grab onto "diet anything", there was about a 70\% increase in psychiatric intakes by the local County Mental Health as it (effectively) blocked the action of most Lithium medications in Schizophrenics who had previously been doing fine on their medication levels.  Some people they took off the diet drinks, and others, they had to adjust the medications upward to compensate for it.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you brought up Aspartame....http : //www.mindfully.org/Health/Aspartame-Adverse-Reactions-1993.htm [ mindfully.org ] This has been well known in psychiatric social workers circles for many years ( I have had two relatives working in the field ) .
The first year " Tab " with Aspartame came out , and was picked up by a population that typically has body image problems in the first place , ad so immediately grab onto " diet anything " , there was about a 70 \ % increase in psychiatric intakes by the local County Mental Health as it ( effectively ) blocked the action of most Lithium medications in Schizophrenics who had previously been doing fine on their medication levels .
Some people they took off the diet drinks , and others , they had to adjust the medications upward to compensate for it.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you brought up Aspartame....http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Aspartame-Adverse-Reactions-1993.htm [mindfully.org]This has been well known in psychiatric social workers circles for many years (I have had two relatives working in the field).
The first year "Tab" with Aspartame came out, and was picked up by a population that typically has body image problems in the first place, ad so immediately grab onto "diet anything", there was about a 70\% increase in psychiatric intakes by the local County Mental Health as it (effectively) blocked the action of most Lithium medications in Schizophrenics who had previously been doing fine on their medication levels.
Some people they took off the diet drinks, and others, they had to adjust the medications upward to compensate for it.-- Terry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811978</id>
	<title>Re:Ok US complainers</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1263806400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>North Dakota's senators (Dorgan-D, and Conrad-D) and representative (Pomeroy-D) are protectionist and populist. North Dakota's primary industry is agriculture. Sugar beets are the major crop of the Red River Valley of the North. All of our reps are on the record as opposing CAFTA and NAFTA. Dorgan has written two well-reviewed books that discuss "free trade" deals and the harm they can cause. (\_Reckless!\_ and \_Take This Job and Ship It\_) They are also on the record as supporting strong protection of American IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>North Dakota 's senators ( Dorgan-D , and Conrad-D ) and representative ( Pomeroy-D ) are protectionist and populist .
North Dakota 's primary industry is agriculture .
Sugar beets are the major crop of the Red River Valley of the North .
All of our reps are on the record as opposing CAFTA and NAFTA .
Dorgan has written two well-reviewed books that discuss " free trade " deals and the harm they can cause .
( \ _Reckless ! \ _ and \ _Take This Job and Ship It \ _ ) They are also on the record as supporting strong protection of American IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>North Dakota's senators (Dorgan-D, and Conrad-D) and representative (Pomeroy-D) are protectionist and populist.
North Dakota's primary industry is agriculture.
Sugar beets are the major crop of the Red River Valley of the North.
All of our reps are on the record as opposing CAFTA and NAFTA.
Dorgan has written two well-reviewed books that discuss "free trade" deals and the harm they can cause.
(\_Reckless!\_ and \_Take This Job and Ship It\_) They are also on the record as supporting strong protection of American IP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813900</id>
	<title>Maybe China</title>
	<author>Bunji X</author>
	<datestamp>1263815760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe China has need for some sweets?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe China has need for some sweets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe China has need for some sweets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810830</id>
	<title>Legality</title>
	<author>Uranium-238</author>
	<datestamp>1263844260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to say "is that even legal?" but since it's part of their trade agreement I suppose it was to be expected, but that's still pretty low of the US to block access to the sugar market. Pro tip: sell your sugar to to Europe!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say " is that even legal ?
" but since it 's part of their trade agreement I suppose it was to be expected , but that 's still pretty low of the US to block access to the sugar market .
Pro tip : sell your sugar to to Europe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say "is that even legal?
" but since it's part of their trade agreement I suppose it was to be expected, but that's still pretty low of the US to block access to the sugar market.
Pro tip: sell your sugar to to Europe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30827226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30825660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30827722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30818614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_1725239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30827226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30814130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812742
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30825660
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821108
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30818614
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30817432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30816188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30821386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30815024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30811208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30827722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30812512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_1725239.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30810842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_1725239.30813254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
