<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_1318221</id>
	<title>South Australia Outlaws Anonymous Political Speech</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265118780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Sabriel writes <i>"If you're online in South Australia and want to comment about the upcoming state election, be prepared to hand over your real name and postcode first &mdash; because this month it becomes <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,1,26665684-5014239,00.html">illegal to do so anonymously</a> (even under a pseudonym). Media organizations must keep your details on file for six months and face 'fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.' This abomination was passed with the support of both major parties (Labour and Liberal), and to quote its sponsor, Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, 'There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.' Apparently incapable of targeting a few impostors without resorting to 'nuke it from orbit' legislative tactics, Atkinson has forgotten that protecting anonymity is important to the democratic process; hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sabriel writes " If you 're online in South Australia and want to comment about the upcoming state election , be prepared to hand over your real name and postcode first    because this month it becomes illegal to do so anonymously ( even under a pseudonym ) .
Media organizations must keep your details on file for six months and face 'fines of $ 5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner .
' This abomination was passed with the support of both major parties ( Labour and Liberal ) , and to quote its sponsor , Attorney-General Michael Atkinson , 'There is no impinging on freedom of speech , people are free to say what they wish as themselves , not as somebody else .
' Apparently incapable of targeting a few impostors without resorting to 'nuke it from orbit ' legislative tactics , Atkinson has forgotten that protecting anonymity is important to the democratic process ; hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sabriel writes "If you're online in South Australia and want to comment about the upcoming state election, be prepared to hand over your real name and postcode first — because this month it becomes illegal to do so anonymously (even under a pseudonym).
Media organizations must keep your details on file for six months and face 'fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.
' This abomination was passed with the support of both major parties (Labour and Liberal), and to quote its sponsor, Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, 'There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.
' Apparently incapable of targeting a few impostors without resorting to 'nuke it from orbit' legislative tactics, Atkinson has forgotten that protecting anonymity is important to the democratic process; hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996232</id>
	<title>Not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are the most racist, f***ed up country around these days. Not trying to be a troll but they stab and burn you to death if you're the wrong skin color. Google Australia + Racism for more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are the most racist , f * * * ed up country around these days .
Not trying to be a troll but they stab and burn you to death if you 're the wrong skin color .
Google Australia + Racism for more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are the most racist, f***ed up country around these days.
Not trying to be a troll but they stab and burn you to death if you're the wrong skin color.
Google Australia + Racism for more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31003714</id>
	<title>hopefully both major parties will get a reminder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please! Hope and change, right? Like the Americans, they will vote for the biggest promise they hear.. about anything, taxes, jobs, you name it. Besides, most people are probably for this. Real freedom lovers do not comprise a majority of the general public. Quite the contrary, the public is very authoritarian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please !
Hope and change , right ?
Like the Americans , they will vote for the biggest promise they hear.. about anything , taxes , jobs , you name it .
Besides , most people are probably for this .
Real freedom lovers do not comprise a majority of the general public .
Quite the contrary , the public is very authoritarian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please!
Hope and change, right?
Like the Americans, they will vote for the biggest promise they hear.. about anything, taxes, jobs, you name it.
Besides, most people are probably for this.
Real freedom lovers do not comprise a majority of the general public.
Quite the contrary, the public is very authoritarian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994598</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1265123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Usually, you need proof and some sort of evidence to provide negative feedback on a political party. What you bring speaks for itself, so you don't need your identity to be known for what you're saying to have an impact anyways.<br>
<br>
If you want to back someone up, feel free, but your backing won't have much power if it's made by someone entirely anonymous. If nobody knows X Oil Company supports candidate Y, then he doesn't have the backing of the large company, just that of Anonymous User Z (which isn't much). I don't think there is a single positive point out of this new legislation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually , you need proof and some sort of evidence to provide negative feedback on a political party .
What you bring speaks for itself , so you do n't need your identity to be known for what you 're saying to have an impact anyways .
If you want to back someone up , feel free , but your backing wo n't have much power if it 's made by someone entirely anonymous .
If nobody knows X Oil Company supports candidate Y , then he does n't have the backing of the large company , just that of Anonymous User Z ( which is n't much ) .
I do n't think there is a single positive point out of this new legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually, you need proof and some sort of evidence to provide negative feedback on a political party.
What you bring speaks for itself, so you don't need your identity to be known for what you're saying to have an impact anyways.
If you want to back someone up, feel free, but your backing won't have much power if it's made by someone entirely anonymous.
If nobody knows X Oil Company supports candidate Y, then he doesn't have the backing of the large company, just that of Anonymous User Z (which isn't much).
I don't think there is a single positive point out of this new legislation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31006354</id>
	<title>Dinkum Arsie...</title>
	<author>dogzdik</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You see in Australia we have plenty of dumb shit arsehole politicians who are nothing other than pathological liars on scummy power trips.

Atkinson the attorney general is another case in point.

The idiot premier Rann is the cretin behind this too...

"We only want people to say NICE (and presumably fake) things about us. (and if they don't we will find them and send the police around to beat them up and charge them with sedition).

While some people may think that is a joke, in Australia our last prime minister "John Howard" (and all his party stooges) was an arsehole who used the cops to heavy people.

Image management with a caved in head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You see in Australia we have plenty of dumb shit arsehole politicians who are nothing other than pathological liars on scummy power trips .
Atkinson the attorney general is another case in point .
The idiot premier Rann is the cretin behind this too.. . " We only want people to say NICE ( and presumably fake ) things about us .
( and if they do n't we will find them and send the police around to beat them up and charge them with sedition ) .
While some people may think that is a joke , in Australia our last prime minister " John Howard " ( and all his party stooges ) was an arsehole who used the cops to heavy people .
Image management with a caved in head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see in Australia we have plenty of dumb shit arsehole politicians who are nothing other than pathological liars on scummy power trips.
Atkinson the attorney general is another case in point.
The idiot premier Rann is the cretin behind this too...

"We only want people to say NICE (and presumably fake) things about us.
(and if they don't we will find them and send the police around to beat them up and charge them with sedition).
While some people may think that is a joke, in Australia our last prime minister "John Howard" (and all his party stooges) was an arsehole who used the cops to heavy people.
Image management with a caved in head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997576</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Soviet Russia joke:</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265134080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech.</p></div><p>I know it's a joke post, but this is an unfortunate common misconception nonetheless. Consitution of the USSR never truly guaranteed freedom of speech. Yes, the article was there, but it was subject to conditions of <a href="http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap07" title="bucknell.edu">Article 39</a> [bucknell.edu], specifically:</p><p><i>"Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state"</i></p><p>Similar provisions existed in pretty much all Communist states, and one still exists in present-day Constitution of PRC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech.I know it 's a joke post , but this is an unfortunate common misconception nonetheless .
Consitution of the USSR never truly guaranteed freedom of speech .
Yes , the article was there , but it was subject to conditions of Article 39 [ bucknell.edu ] , specifically : " Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state " Similar provisions existed in pretty much all Communist states , and one still exists in present-day Constitution of PRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech.I know it's a joke post, but this is an unfortunate common misconception nonetheless.
Consitution of the USSR never truly guaranteed freedom of speech.
Yes, the article was there, but it was subject to conditions of Article 39 [bucknell.edu], specifically:"Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state"Similar provisions existed in pretty much all Communist states, and one still exists in present-day Constitution of PRC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001516</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is with Australia lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265106900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like a three-way game of one-upmanship. From the outside it was sort of funny for a while, but we're squarely in the scary now.</p><p>The worst is that leaders around the world are gleefully taking notes. Yes Europe, I'm looking at you.</p><p>captcha: fiendish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like a three-way game of one-upmanship .
From the outside it was sort of funny for a while , but we 're squarely in the scary now.The worst is that leaders around the world are gleefully taking notes .
Yes Europe , I 'm looking at you.captcha : fiendish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like a three-way game of one-upmanship.
From the outside it was sort of funny for a while, but we're squarely in the scary now.The worst is that leaders around the world are gleefully taking notes.
Yes Europe, I'm looking at you.captcha: fiendish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682</id>
	<title>system</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1265123820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20.</p></div><p>That's some heavy stuff you're smoking there, you sure it's legal?</p><p>The political system of the west is <b>built</b> to let blunders of this kind disappear. Because you can not vote on issues, only on parties. And if party X has 90\% of your opinion, you're going to vote for it rather than party Y which only has 60\% of your opinions.</p><p>Until something like that Pirate Parties "liquid democracy" becomes a reality, that's the way it is and the major parties can pretty much fuck you in the ass as long as they make sure you don't have any realistic alternatives to vote for instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20.That 's some heavy stuff you 're smoking there , you sure it 's legal ? The political system of the west is built to let blunders of this kind disappear .
Because you can not vote on issues , only on parties .
And if party X has 90 \ % of your opinion , you 're going to vote for it rather than party Y which only has 60 \ % of your opinions.Until something like that Pirate Parties " liquid democracy " becomes a reality , that 's the way it is and the major parties can pretty much fuck you in the ass as long as they make sure you do n't have any realistic alternatives to vote for instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20.That's some heavy stuff you're smoking there, you sure it's legal?The political system of the west is built to let blunders of this kind disappear.
Because you can not vote on issues, only on parties.
And if party X has 90\% of your opinion, you're going to vote for it rather than party Y which only has 60\% of your opinions.Until something like that Pirate Parties "liquid democracy" becomes a reality, that's the way it is and the major parties can pretty much fuck you in the ass as long as they make sure you don't have any realistic alternatives to vote for instead.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996264</id>
	<title>Re:Common Sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a typical bureaucratic government response. Can't stick with principles, because it too difficult, not expedient. No honor.<br> <br>

It's just the nature of government to lust for more control.<br> <br>

I'm becoming more Libertarian every day.  Now if they would just get some candidates that aren't politicians, but that's a contradiction, isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a typical bureaucratic government response .
Ca n't stick with principles , because it too difficult , not expedient .
No honor .
It 's just the nature of government to lust for more control .
I 'm becoming more Libertarian every day .
Now if they would just get some candidates that are n't politicians , but that 's a contradiction , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a typical bureaucratic government response.
Can't stick with principles, because it too difficult, not expedient.
No honor.
It's just the nature of government to lust for more control.
I'm becoming more Libertarian every day.
Now if they would just get some candidates that aren't politicians, but that's a contradiction, isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000056</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not your personal army</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not your personal army</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not your personal army</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995028</id>
	<title>Re:system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, look what happened when the Yanks voted in that half-white dude along with the rest of his party.  They tripled their debt in just the first 3 months of have all the same party in power!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , look what happened when the Yanks voted in that half-white dude along with the rest of his party .
They tripled their debt in just the first 3 months of have all the same party in power !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, look what happened when the Yanks voted in that half-white dude along with the rest of his party.
They tripled their debt in just the first 3 months of have all the same party in power!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997604</id>
	<title>Re:system</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1265134140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I googled on liquid democracy but did not find much detail.</p><p>oh well.  what you say about choices is true of parlimentary "democracy".  In the US,if you talk about "built", recall that parties were very much in disfavor in the really old days.</p><p>anyway, the relevant thing today in the US is a  very obvious mass strike.  kind of a technical term. the last action in the US with significant mass strike characteristics was Birminghham 63.<br>might be outside your history, try DVR october 89.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I googled on liquid democracy but did not find much detail.oh well .
what you say about choices is true of parlimentary " democracy " .
In the US,if you talk about " built " , recall that parties were very much in disfavor in the really old days.anyway , the relevant thing today in the US is a very obvious mass strike .
kind of a technical term .
the last action in the US with significant mass strike characteristics was Birminghham 63.might be outside your history , try DVR october 89 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I googled on liquid democracy but did not find much detail.oh well.
what you say about choices is true of parlimentary "democracy".
In the US,if you talk about "built", recall that parties were very much in disfavor in the really old days.anyway, the relevant thing today in the US is a  very obvious mass strike.
kind of a technical term.
the last action in the US with significant mass strike characteristics was Birminghham 63.might be outside your history, try DVR october 89.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31004850</id>
	<title>Re:Feh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They forced them to give up fully automatic and certain semiautomatic firearms, not to disarm the population. You can still kill people with guns here, it's just harder to kill dozens in a short timeframe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They forced them to give up fully automatic and certain semiautomatic firearms , not to disarm the population .
You can still kill people with guns here , it 's just harder to kill dozens in a short timeframe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They forced them to give up fully automatic and certain semiautomatic firearms, not to disarm the population.
You can still kill people with guns here, it's just harder to kill dozens in a short timeframe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994958</id>
	<title>Re:system</title>
	<author>ztransform</author>
	<datestamp>1265125020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because you can not vote on issues, only on parties.</p></div><p>Imagine a parliament filled only with independents. Then having to form a true consensus about an issue with a real debate!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you can not vote on issues , only on parties.Imagine a parliament filled only with independents .
Then having to form a true consensus about an issue with a real debate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you can not vote on issues, only on parties.Imagine a parliament filled only with independents.
Then having to form a true consensus about an issue with a real debate!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996288</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to forget</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1265129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's obvious to everybody else, but what problem is this law supposed to solve? What are the arguments in favor of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's obvious to everybody else , but what problem is this law supposed to solve ?
What are the arguments in favor of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's obvious to everybody else, but what problem is this law supposed to solve?
What are the arguments in favor of it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994866</id>
	<title>Re:My views</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1265124660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I could find some bitches I'd keep them to myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could find some bitches I 'd keep them to myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could find some bitches I'd keep them to myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997752</id>
	<title>If scum sucking pig dog politicians ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>want us to be responsible for what we say about them, then they should be held accountable for the lies they tell us, like " I won't raise taxes " or " I did not have improper sexual relations<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>want us to be responsible for what we say about them , then they should be held accountable for the lies they tell us , like " I wo n't raise taxes " or " I did not have improper sexual relations ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>want us to be responsible for what we say about them, then they should be held accountable for the lies they tell us, like " I won't raise taxes " or " I did not have improper sexual relations ... "</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994852</id>
	<title>It should not matter who voices the opinion</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1265124600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care if its the ACLU, RIAA, Greenpeace, NRA, or George Clooney.</p><p>People accept views in line with their own usually without regard to source.  Far too many put any effort in determining if quotes are from the actual source let alone what some of the those groups with fancy names really represent.</p><p>I want all the speech we can get, the day where we outlaw it because of some petty concerns, and yours are petty, is the day we start down the path of excluding groups by voluntary organization which in turn because those of involuntary association.</p><p>Sorry, either all or nothing and all is the only choice.  Look at any politician who comes out against a particular type of speech and you will find an incumbent fearful of losing his power over others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if its the ACLU , RIAA , Greenpeace , NRA , or George Clooney.People accept views in line with their own usually without regard to source .
Far too many put any effort in determining if quotes are from the actual source let alone what some of the those groups with fancy names really represent.I want all the speech we can get , the day where we outlaw it because of some petty concerns , and yours are petty , is the day we start down the path of excluding groups by voluntary organization which in turn because those of involuntary association.Sorry , either all or nothing and all is the only choice .
Look at any politician who comes out against a particular type of speech and you will find an incumbent fearful of losing his power over others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if its the ACLU, RIAA, Greenpeace, NRA, or George Clooney.People accept views in line with their own usually without regard to source.
Far too many put any effort in determining if quotes are from the actual source let alone what some of the those groups with fancy names really represent.I want all the speech we can get, the day where we outlaw it because of some petty concerns, and yours are petty, is the day we start down the path of excluding groups by voluntary organization which in turn because those of involuntary association.Sorry, either all or nothing and all is the only choice.
Look at any politician who comes out against a particular type of speech and you will find an incumbent fearful of losing his power over others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998480</id>
	<title>Circumvent Free Speach with Liability</title>
	<author>CherniyVolk</author>
	<datestamp>1265137020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It saddens me to see Australia pass such legislation.  An idea is an idea regardless of name and postal code, some of those ideas are true honest sentiments that might contradict public perception; and thus either open eyes, be repulsive but true, and outright offense yet true still.  Some times, the best way to change the world, is to get your idea out there, and while some might wish to hold you accountable, the time they waste searching for you your concept is sinking in to the rest of the people.  On the other hand, if they immediately catch you, they can bash you on the media effectively diverting the public from the issue you might have raised.</p><p>Whistleblowers tend to come out in times like these.  It's my philosophy that the truth only manifests in extreme situations.  And no matter how much we might stomach the ignoble practices of one potential politician, the moment they stand to get elected into a seat of power is such an extreme that often compels an objector to speaking out.  Sometimes these issues to be made known are offensive in nature, or of great concern... yet real enough warranting anonymity of the whistleblower not only from the accused but from public backlash.</p><p>Anonymity veils a persons inhibitions and permits more honest dialogue.  Sometimes we dislike what we hear from anonymity, and challenge the person such as 'Oh, hiding behind a computer screen, I'd kick your ass you say that to my face' is really just... 'I can't convince you of irrational beliefs so I'll threaten pain for you to object to them, and if you rescind or silence, then morons around me will applaud me as if I'm correct'.</p><p>Requiring a name and postal code is attempting to achieve accountability, which is a detriment to free speech.  With accountability comes liability, should your free speech anger the wrong person.  With liability, there is no free speech.  It should suffice alone, that the message be known to have originated within the jurisdiction of the topic.  With the world being so small due to the Internet, perhaps originating IP address is to restricted for Australian political issues, perhaps an Australian is in Belgium when he rightfully voices his opinion.  But, no politician might object to praise from any source, perhaps even from his enemy.  International praise is coveted I assume, so if I compliment Vladimir Putin as an American, I think it's safe to assume he might accept the compliment, the International approval, the Global approval, even though I'm not a Russian constituent.  If willing to accept praise, then be prepared to hear criticism as well; picking and choosing in this regard is simply foolish for every criticism simply provides the conditions for future praise.</p><p>I think Australia would do well to undo this law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It saddens me to see Australia pass such legislation .
An idea is an idea regardless of name and postal code , some of those ideas are true honest sentiments that might contradict public perception ; and thus either open eyes , be repulsive but true , and outright offense yet true still .
Some times , the best way to change the world , is to get your idea out there , and while some might wish to hold you accountable , the time they waste searching for you your concept is sinking in to the rest of the people .
On the other hand , if they immediately catch you , they can bash you on the media effectively diverting the public from the issue you might have raised.Whistleblowers tend to come out in times like these .
It 's my philosophy that the truth only manifests in extreme situations .
And no matter how much we might stomach the ignoble practices of one potential politician , the moment they stand to get elected into a seat of power is such an extreme that often compels an objector to speaking out .
Sometimes these issues to be made known are offensive in nature , or of great concern... yet real enough warranting anonymity of the whistleblower not only from the accused but from public backlash.Anonymity veils a persons inhibitions and permits more honest dialogue .
Sometimes we dislike what we hear from anonymity , and challenge the person such as 'Oh , hiding behind a computer screen , I 'd kick your ass you say that to my face ' is really just... 'I ca n't convince you of irrational beliefs so I 'll threaten pain for you to object to them , and if you rescind or silence , then morons around me will applaud me as if I 'm correct'.Requiring a name and postal code is attempting to achieve accountability , which is a detriment to free speech .
With accountability comes liability , should your free speech anger the wrong person .
With liability , there is no free speech .
It should suffice alone , that the message be known to have originated within the jurisdiction of the topic .
With the world being so small due to the Internet , perhaps originating IP address is to restricted for Australian political issues , perhaps an Australian is in Belgium when he rightfully voices his opinion .
But , no politician might object to praise from any source , perhaps even from his enemy .
International praise is coveted I assume , so if I compliment Vladimir Putin as an American , I think it 's safe to assume he might accept the compliment , the International approval , the Global approval , even though I 'm not a Russian constituent .
If willing to accept praise , then be prepared to hear criticism as well ; picking and choosing in this regard is simply foolish for every criticism simply provides the conditions for future praise.I think Australia would do well to undo this law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It saddens me to see Australia pass such legislation.
An idea is an idea regardless of name and postal code, some of those ideas are true honest sentiments that might contradict public perception; and thus either open eyes, be repulsive but true, and outright offense yet true still.
Some times, the best way to change the world, is to get your idea out there, and while some might wish to hold you accountable, the time they waste searching for you your concept is sinking in to the rest of the people.
On the other hand, if they immediately catch you, they can bash you on the media effectively diverting the public from the issue you might have raised.Whistleblowers tend to come out in times like these.
It's my philosophy that the truth only manifests in extreme situations.
And no matter how much we might stomach the ignoble practices of one potential politician, the moment they stand to get elected into a seat of power is such an extreme that often compels an objector to speaking out.
Sometimes these issues to be made known are offensive in nature, or of great concern... yet real enough warranting anonymity of the whistleblower not only from the accused but from public backlash.Anonymity veils a persons inhibitions and permits more honest dialogue.
Sometimes we dislike what we hear from anonymity, and challenge the person such as 'Oh, hiding behind a computer screen, I'd kick your ass you say that to my face' is really just... 'I can't convince you of irrational beliefs so I'll threaten pain for you to object to them, and if you rescind or silence, then morons around me will applaud me as if I'm correct'.Requiring a name and postal code is attempting to achieve accountability, which is a detriment to free speech.
With accountability comes liability, should your free speech anger the wrong person.
With liability, there is no free speech.
It should suffice alone, that the message be known to have originated within the jurisdiction of the topic.
With the world being so small due to the Internet, perhaps originating IP address is to restricted for Australian political issues, perhaps an Australian is in Belgium when he rightfully voices his opinion.
But, no politician might object to praise from any source, perhaps even from his enemy.
International praise is coveted I assume, so if I compliment Vladimir Putin as an American, I think it's safe to assume he might accept the compliment, the International approval, the Global approval, even though I'm not a Russian constituent.
If willing to accept praise, then be prepared to hear criticism as well; picking and choosing in this regard is simply foolish for every criticism simply provides the conditions for future praise.I think Australia would do well to undo this law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995688</id>
	<title>Anonymous freedom of speech downed down under</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1265127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where the Supremes found in 1995 that anonymous freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment that's apparently not the case Down Under.
<p>
The most vexing part of this affair to me is that Australia is usually accounted as part of the "Western" world. You know, that part of the world where people have freedom of speech. Now how can you have freedom of speech if you don't have freedom of anonymous speech? Australia is really "ruining the neighborhood" and "letting the side down" on this.
</p><p>
Now what was that again about China trampling on free speech on the Internet?
</p><p>
Oh yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... still have a proposal to combat bush-fires in Australia that's been unfairly sat upon I feel. Since about 50\% of all bush-fires are reported (by the Australian authorities) to be lit on purpose I propose to ban the sale of matches in Australia to any Australian over the age of 5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the Supremes found in 1995 that anonymous freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment that 's apparently not the case Down Under .
The most vexing part of this affair to me is that Australia is usually accounted as part of the " Western " world .
You know , that part of the world where people have freedom of speech .
Now how can you have freedom of speech if you do n't have freedom of anonymous speech ?
Australia is really " ruining the neighborhood " and " letting the side down " on this .
Now what was that again about China trampling on free speech on the Internet ?
Oh yes ... still have a proposal to combat bush-fires in Australia that 's been unfairly sat upon I feel .
Since about 50 \ % of all bush-fires are reported ( by the Australian authorities ) to be lit on purpose I propose to ban the sale of matches in Australia to any Australian over the age of 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the Supremes found in 1995 that anonymous freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment that's apparently not the case Down Under.
The most vexing part of this affair to me is that Australia is usually accounted as part of the "Western" world.
You know, that part of the world where people have freedom of speech.
Now how can you have freedom of speech if you don't have freedom of anonymous speech?
Australia is really "ruining the neighborhood" and "letting the side down" on this.
Now what was that again about China trampling on free speech on the Internet?
Oh yes ... still have a proposal to combat bush-fires in Australia that's been unfairly sat upon I feel.
Since about 50\% of all bush-fires are reported (by the Australian authorities) to be lit on purpose I propose to ban the sale of matches in Australia to any Australian over the age of 5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000980</id>
	<title>I am South Australian....</title>
	<author>jamest\_adelaide</author>
	<datestamp>1265104140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I apologize to the world.  The problem is that, while SA is a wonderful place to live etc, the political gene pool is way too small and its too easy for some fairly marginal individuals to rise to positions of power. I didn't vote for these jokers BTW - but the opposition is even worse. The Greens are the only (reasonably) sane option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I apologize to the world .
The problem is that , while SA is a wonderful place to live etc , the political gene pool is way too small and its too easy for some fairly marginal individuals to rise to positions of power .
I did n't vote for these jokers BTW - but the opposition is even worse .
The Greens are the only ( reasonably ) sane option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I apologize to the world.
The problem is that, while SA is a wonderful place to live etc, the political gene pool is way too small and its too easy for some fairly marginal individuals to rise to positions of power.
I didn't vote for these jokers BTW - but the opposition is even worse.
The Greens are the only (reasonably) sane option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31032494</id>
	<title>anonymous comment needs to protect itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265363940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three things will happen:</p><p>1. People will post anyway claiming to be South Australians or perhaps even claiming not to be, on other jurisdictions' forums primarily - so<br>the jurisdiction's authority will be extincted or at least very limited;  Anonymity is respected at least in part because it's better than forms of unverifiable credential claim or impersonation that are inevitable if it isn't.</p><p>2. Some people, sincerely or not, will claim not to have commented at all because they could not be associated with the comment due to work pressure or family ties (for instance, commenting on gay rights issues when no one knows you're gay, or commenting on abuses in the corporate world which may be construed as describing your own company, or a profession, or other whistle-blowing that cannot be easily dissociated from oneself).  Whatever the truth of these claims, there will be allegations that many legitimate comments could not be heard.</p><p>3. The law will change either due to 1, 2, or a court ruling based on them.  Or profound political backlash.</p><p>If nothing else this highlights that there *is* an assumed right to remain anonymous analogous to the secret ballot, and that few jurisdictions have such rules, and they are always very controversial.</p><p>Attempting to "out" all political comment is wrong and can be proven wrong by human rights treaties like the UDHR and ICCPR which Australia has signed.  Courts will not want to effectively mandate that any comment becomes non-anonymous the second someone claims it caused some controversy.  Such a ruling would expose all the dissidents to all of the oppressive regimes in the world.</p><p>It's time to fire this Attorney-General and make sure he never holds any public office ever again.</p><p>Get to work, folks!  Anonymously, of course.  Did I hear somewhere that this guy is a pedophile?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three things will happen : 1 .
People will post anyway claiming to be South Australians or perhaps even claiming not to be , on other jurisdictions ' forums primarily - sothe jurisdiction 's authority will be extincted or at least very limited ; Anonymity is respected at least in part because it 's better than forms of unverifiable credential claim or impersonation that are inevitable if it is n't.2 .
Some people , sincerely or not , will claim not to have commented at all because they could not be associated with the comment due to work pressure or family ties ( for instance , commenting on gay rights issues when no one knows you 're gay , or commenting on abuses in the corporate world which may be construed as describing your own company , or a profession , or other whistle-blowing that can not be easily dissociated from oneself ) .
Whatever the truth of these claims , there will be allegations that many legitimate comments could not be heard.3 .
The law will change either due to 1 , 2 , or a court ruling based on them .
Or profound political backlash.If nothing else this highlights that there * is * an assumed right to remain anonymous analogous to the secret ballot , and that few jurisdictions have such rules , and they are always very controversial.Attempting to " out " all political comment is wrong and can be proven wrong by human rights treaties like the UDHR and ICCPR which Australia has signed .
Courts will not want to effectively mandate that any comment becomes non-anonymous the second someone claims it caused some controversy .
Such a ruling would expose all the dissidents to all of the oppressive regimes in the world.It 's time to fire this Attorney-General and make sure he never holds any public office ever again.Get to work , folks !
Anonymously , of course .
Did I hear somewhere that this guy is a pedophile ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three things will happen:1.
People will post anyway claiming to be South Australians or perhaps even claiming not to be, on other jurisdictions' forums primarily - sothe jurisdiction's authority will be extincted or at least very limited;  Anonymity is respected at least in part because it's better than forms of unverifiable credential claim or impersonation that are inevitable if it isn't.2.
Some people, sincerely or not, will claim not to have commented at all because they could not be associated with the comment due to work pressure or family ties (for instance, commenting on gay rights issues when no one knows you're gay, or commenting on abuses in the corporate world which may be construed as describing your own company, or a profession, or other whistle-blowing that cannot be easily dissociated from oneself).
Whatever the truth of these claims, there will be allegations that many legitimate comments could not be heard.3.
The law will change either due to 1, 2, or a court ruling based on them.
Or profound political backlash.If nothing else this highlights that there *is* an assumed right to remain anonymous analogous to the secret ballot, and that few jurisdictions have such rules, and they are always very controversial.Attempting to "out" all political comment is wrong and can be proven wrong by human rights treaties like the UDHR and ICCPR which Australia has signed.
Courts will not want to effectively mandate that any comment becomes non-anonymous the second someone claims it caused some controversy.
Such a ruling would expose all the dissidents to all of the oppressive regimes in the world.It's time to fire this Attorney-General and make sure he never holds any public office ever again.Get to work, folks!
Anonymously, of course.
Did I hear somewhere that this guy is a pedophile?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994556</id>
	<title>Re:They are stopping it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I will immediately <b>after</b> the election move to repeal the law retrospectively."</p></div><p>Promises, promises. . .</p><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively .
" Promises , promises .
. .-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively.
"Promises, promises.
. .-FL
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994806</id>
	<title>australia has been stuck in the antipodes too long</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1265124420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we need to tow australia up to the northern hemisphere, give it someone to talk to and play with. it's kind of getting cabin fever down there in the nothingness and kind of losing its mind. all it has to talk to is new zealand, and we all know what that's worth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we need to tow australia up to the northern hemisphere , give it someone to talk to and play with .
it 's kind of getting cabin fever down there in the nothingness and kind of losing its mind .
all it has to talk to is new zealand , and we all know what that 's worth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need to tow australia up to the northern hemisphere, give it someone to talk to and play with.
it's kind of getting cabin fever down there in the nothingness and kind of losing its mind.
all it has to talk to is new zealand, and we all know what that's worth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995752</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't talk politics at work. I get enough pointless argument at work just doing the daily job; I have no desire or need to chum for more. </p><p>I don't use Facebook, MySpace, or any other online forum under my real name. Without packet capture, good luck tying me to those pseudonyms.</p><p>I'm not sure I even visibly espouse any particular political flavor under those 'nyms, other than generally being in favor of personal liberty over governmental convenience. I guess that just means that since I don't self-identify as one brand of tuna or another, the reader can label me however it pleases them. As if I care.</p><p> <i>but get rid of anonymous voting, especially on referenda.</i> </p><p>This is sufficiently borderline-retarded that I'm tempted to think it's just a troll, but you seem quite sincere. So let's pretend, for the sake of amusement, that you are.</p><p>Retarded. Epic retarded.</p><p> <i>If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want the government to personally assess you a new tax so you can put your money where your mouth is if I decide to vote "no" on it.</i> </p><p>Welcome to democracy, Grasshopper. The vote is not "Yes <strong>I</strong> will" or "No <strong>I</strong> won't". <strong>We</strong> all will or won't. So vote no, but if you lose, you get to help anyways. This is reality. No one gets an opt-out. Deal.</p><p>Besides, what's the difference between "If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want the government to personally assess you a new tax" and "If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want gather up a posse and teach you rough justice"?</p><p>Stereotypically, this would just degenerate into mob rule, the majority abusing or eliminating the minority. In a few cases, where the minority already has the whip hand, this degenerates into death squads and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Condor" title="wikipedia.org">los desaparecidos</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>But, as long as you don't have to get taxed for anything you don't personally approve of... I guess it's ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't talk politics at work .
I get enough pointless argument at work just doing the daily job ; I have no desire or need to chum for more .
I do n't use Facebook , MySpace , or any other online forum under my real name .
Without packet capture , good luck tying me to those pseudonyms.I 'm not sure I even visibly espouse any particular political flavor under those 'nyms , other than generally being in favor of personal liberty over governmental convenience .
I guess that just means that since I do n't self-identify as one brand of tuna or another , the reader can label me however it pleases them .
As if I care .
but get rid of anonymous voting , especially on referenda .
This is sufficiently borderline-retarded that I 'm tempted to think it 's just a troll , but you seem quite sincere .
So let 's pretend , for the sake of amusement , that you are.Retarded .
Epic retarded .
If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond , I want the government to personally assess you a new tax so you can put your money where your mouth is if I decide to vote " no " on it .
Welcome to democracy , Grasshopper .
The vote is not " Yes I will " or " No I wo n't " .
We all will or wo n't .
So vote no , but if you lose , you get to help anyways .
This is reality .
No one gets an opt-out .
Deal.Besides , what 's the difference between " If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond , I want the government to personally assess you a new tax " and " If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond , I want gather up a posse and teach you rough justice " ? Stereotypically , this would just degenerate into mob rule , the majority abusing or eliminating the minority .
In a few cases , where the minority already has the whip hand , this degenerates into death squads and los desaparecidos [ wikipedia.org ] .But , as long as you do n't have to get taxed for anything you do n't personally approve of... I guess it 's ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't talk politics at work.
I get enough pointless argument at work just doing the daily job; I have no desire or need to chum for more.
I don't use Facebook, MySpace, or any other online forum under my real name.
Without packet capture, good luck tying me to those pseudonyms.I'm not sure I even visibly espouse any particular political flavor under those 'nyms, other than generally being in favor of personal liberty over governmental convenience.
I guess that just means that since I don't self-identify as one brand of tuna or another, the reader can label me however it pleases them.
As if I care.
but get rid of anonymous voting, especially on referenda.
This is sufficiently borderline-retarded that I'm tempted to think it's just a troll, but you seem quite sincere.
So let's pretend, for the sake of amusement, that you are.Retarded.
Epic retarded.
If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want the government to personally assess you a new tax so you can put your money where your mouth is if I decide to vote "no" on it.
Welcome to democracy, Grasshopper.
The vote is not "Yes I will" or "No I won't".
We all will or won't.
So vote no, but if you lose, you get to help anyways.
This is reality.
No one gets an opt-out.
Deal.Besides, what's the difference between "If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want the government to personally assess you a new tax" and "If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want gather up a posse and teach you rough justice"?Stereotypically, this would just degenerate into mob rule, the majority abusing or eliminating the minority.
In a few cases, where the minority already has the whip hand, this degenerates into death squads and los desaparecidos [wikipedia.org].But, as long as you don't have to get taxed for anything you don't personally approve of... I guess it's ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994646</id>
	<title>Australians, ever competitive</title>
	<author>Bertie</author>
	<datestamp>1265123640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously they've been stung into action by those pesky Pommies' headlong rush into totalitarianism, and as usual are pulling out all the stops to get one over on their old rival...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously they 've been stung into action by those pesky Pommies ' headlong rush into totalitarianism , and as usual are pulling out all the stops to get one over on their old rival.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously they've been stung into action by those pesky Pommies' headlong rush into totalitarianism, and as usual are pulling out all the stops to get one over on their old rival...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001730</id>
	<title>gamers4croydon; Atkinson bans computer games also</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1265108100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has been the driving force behind moves to ban certain computer games from Australia for a long time. This dude is just bad news.</p><p>There is an organisation called Gamers for Croydon, who are locked in a feud with him him and his policies.</p><p>gamers4croydon, have a political candidate who will be standing against Atkinson for the seat of Croydon (in Adelaide) next election.</p><p>If your interested in the politics of games, checkout their website at <a href="http://www.gamers4croydon.org/" title="gamers4croydon.org">http://www.gamers4croydon.org/</a> [gamers4croydon.org]</p><p>They have a steam group also<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has been the driving force behind moves to ban certain computer games from Australia for a long time .
This dude is just bad news.There is an organisation called Gamers for Croydon , who are locked in a feud with him him and his policies.gamers4croydon , have a political candidate who will be standing against Atkinson for the seat of Croydon ( in Adelaide ) next election.If your interested in the politics of games , checkout their website at http : //www.gamers4croydon.org/ [ gamers4croydon.org ] They have a steam group also ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has been the driving force behind moves to ban certain computer games from Australia for a long time.
This dude is just bad news.There is an organisation called Gamers for Croydon, who are locked in a feud with him him and his policies.gamers4croydon, have a political candidate who will be standing against Atkinson for the seat of Croydon (in Adelaide) next election.If your interested in the politics of games, checkout their website at http://www.gamers4croydon.org/ [gamers4croydon.org]They have a steam group also ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002582</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is with Australia lately?</title>
	<author>mabinogi</author>
	<datestamp>1265112960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both of those instances are not actually the introduction of anything new - they are simply cases of the law being applied as written.<br>I don't imagine the simpsons porn issue will change - afterall, which politician would want to soften an anti-child porn law?<br>But the video game issue is being actively challenged, and most of the country wants to change it, and it's just a matter of time until it is changed.   The only reason it hasn't already been fixed is because of the bizarre rule that any changes to the classification system have to be agreed to by the Attorneys General of every state - and the S.A. Attorney General (the Michael Atkinson from this story, coincidentally)  keeps digging in his heels and coming up with more and more ridiculous reasons why the change would be bad.  However, he's unlikely to remain Attorney General after S.A's approaching election, so the problem will go away.</p><p>One thing to be careful of when judging the state of things in the other country, is that negative proposals or plans like this always generate headlines.  The more important story, where the plan is cancelled, or defeated almost never does.<br>In this particular case, Atkinson has already ditched this plan, due to the massive public outcry - but you won't see a followup story saying that.  So as a result someone that only reads headlines would have a very warped idea of the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both of those instances are not actually the introduction of anything new - they are simply cases of the law being applied as written.I do n't imagine the simpsons porn issue will change - afterall , which politician would want to soften an anti-child porn law ? But the video game issue is being actively challenged , and most of the country wants to change it , and it 's just a matter of time until it is changed .
The only reason it has n't already been fixed is because of the bizarre rule that any changes to the classification system have to be agreed to by the Attorneys General of every state - and the S.A. Attorney General ( the Michael Atkinson from this story , coincidentally ) keeps digging in his heels and coming up with more and more ridiculous reasons why the change would be bad .
However , he 's unlikely to remain Attorney General after S.A 's approaching election , so the problem will go away.One thing to be careful of when judging the state of things in the other country , is that negative proposals or plans like this always generate headlines .
The more important story , where the plan is cancelled , or defeated almost never does.In this particular case , Atkinson has already ditched this plan , due to the massive public outcry - but you wo n't see a followup story saying that .
So as a result someone that only reads headlines would have a very warped idea of the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both of those instances are not actually the introduction of anything new - they are simply cases of the law being applied as written.I don't imagine the simpsons porn issue will change - afterall, which politician would want to soften an anti-child porn law?But the video game issue is being actively challenged, and most of the country wants to change it, and it's just a matter of time until it is changed.
The only reason it hasn't already been fixed is because of the bizarre rule that any changes to the classification system have to be agreed to by the Attorneys General of every state - and the S.A. Attorney General (the Michael Atkinson from this story, coincidentally)  keeps digging in his heels and coming up with more and more ridiculous reasons why the change would be bad.
However, he's unlikely to remain Attorney General after S.A's approaching election, so the problem will go away.One thing to be careful of when judging the state of things in the other country, is that negative proposals or plans like this always generate headlines.
The more important story, where the plan is cancelled, or defeated almost never does.In this particular case, Atkinson has already ditched this plan, due to the massive public outcry - but you won't see a followup story saying that.
So as a result someone that only reads headlines would have a very warped idea of the truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995260</id>
	<title>What democracy?</title>
	<author>kpoole55</author>
	<datestamp>1265126280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think there are any really democratic countries left in the world.  There might be some truly democratic villages but just about every example of what we call a democracy from my local city council to every country that declares themselves to be a bastion of democracy are not really democracies.  They are republics.  Citizens are occasionally polled on some issues but most legislation is passed by a small group of representatives who, once they are elected, don't bother thinking about the citizens they represent until it's time to make a new set of promises to get themselves elected again.</p><p>I'm commenting from Canada where our local minority national Government is using every legal technicality to stay in power including suspending the open house so they can't face a loss of confidence vote.  Somehow, though, they still manage to pass legislation in committee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there are any really democratic countries left in the world .
There might be some truly democratic villages but just about every example of what we call a democracy from my local city council to every country that declares themselves to be a bastion of democracy are not really democracies .
They are republics .
Citizens are occasionally polled on some issues but most legislation is passed by a small group of representatives who , once they are elected , do n't bother thinking about the citizens they represent until it 's time to make a new set of promises to get themselves elected again.I 'm commenting from Canada where our local minority national Government is using every legal technicality to stay in power including suspending the open house so they ca n't face a loss of confidence vote .
Somehow , though , they still manage to pass legislation in committee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think there are any really democratic countries left in the world.
There might be some truly democratic villages but just about every example of what we call a democracy from my local city council to every country that declares themselves to be a bastion of democracy are not really democracies.
They are republics.
Citizens are occasionally polled on some issues but most legislation is passed by a small group of representatives who, once they are elected, don't bother thinking about the citizens they represent until it's time to make a new set of promises to get themselves elected again.I'm commenting from Canada where our local minority national Government is using every legal technicality to stay in power including suspending the open house so they can't face a loss of confidence vote.
Somehow, though, they still manage to pass legislation in committee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000212</id>
	<title>Re:Feh</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1265144100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I believe this to be completely improper and unethical, such a law would not stop me from saying what I want.  It would actually provoke me to be more harsh and judgmental towards those that passed such a disgusting law.  Is the Australian government next going to require protesters and demonstrators to all register before they participate in large groups?</p><p>This is exactly what happened with firearms in that country.  First, they made the citizens register all the weapons, then they forced them to give the weapons up.  Some of the liberal jackasses that told firearm owners to "get real" and to deal with "living in a modern society" did not realize that the government would find a way to come after them next.  Well, let this be a lesson to you gun-hating nut jobs.  When the government decides that they are tired of you exercising your rights, they will take them away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I believe this to be completely improper and unethical , such a law would not stop me from saying what I want .
It would actually provoke me to be more harsh and judgmental towards those that passed such a disgusting law .
Is the Australian government next going to require protesters and demonstrators to all register before they participate in large groups ? This is exactly what happened with firearms in that country .
First , they made the citizens register all the weapons , then they forced them to give the weapons up .
Some of the liberal jackasses that told firearm owners to " get real " and to deal with " living in a modern society " did not realize that the government would find a way to come after them next .
Well , let this be a lesson to you gun-hating nut jobs .
When the government decides that they are tired of you exercising your rights , they will take them away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I believe this to be completely improper and unethical, such a law would not stop me from saying what I want.
It would actually provoke me to be more harsh and judgmental towards those that passed such a disgusting law.
Is the Australian government next going to require protesters and demonstrators to all register before they participate in large groups?This is exactly what happened with firearms in that country.
First, they made the citizens register all the weapons, then they forced them to give the weapons up.
Some of the liberal jackasses that told firearm owners to "get real" and to deal with "living in a modern society" did not realize that the government would find a way to come after them next.
Well, let this be a lesson to you gun-hating nut jobs.
When the government decides that they are tired of you exercising your rights, they will take them away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994676</id>
	<title>Re:Feh</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1265123760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No critisism. Less freedom than the "suggestion box" at my office. Lame.</p></div><p>Nicely done!  Wish I had some mod points to throw at you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>A link for the newbies who don't get <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257" title="slashdot.org">the reference</a> [slashdot.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No critisism .
Less freedom than the " suggestion box " at my office .
Lame.Nicely done !
Wish I had some mod points to throw at you : ) A link for the newbies who do n't get the reference [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No critisism.
Less freedom than the "suggestion box" at my office.
Lame.Nicely done!
Wish I had some mod points to throw at you :)
A link for the newbies who don't get the reference [slashdot.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994572</id>
	<title>"hopefully both major parties will get a reminder"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, the every hopeful optimism of democracy. They politicians we voted for screw us, so lets vote for new politicians!</p><p>When will people finally realize that "the people" simply don't have to be listened to? Even if every single incumbent were to be voted out, the new batch would still benefit from that law. Same story, different faces. No government worker is going to repeal a law that benefits them so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the every hopeful optimism of democracy .
They politicians we voted for screw us , so lets vote for new politicians ! When will people finally realize that " the people " simply do n't have to be listened to ?
Even if every single incumbent were to be voted out , the new batch would still benefit from that law .
Same story , different faces .
No government worker is going to repeal a law that benefits them so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the every hopeful optimism of democracy.
They politicians we voted for screw us, so lets vote for new politicians!When will people finally realize that "the people" simply don't have to be listened to?
Even if every single incumbent were to be voted out, the new batch would still benefit from that law.
Same story, different faces.
No government worker is going to repeal a law that benefits them so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001854</id>
	<title>Re:Feh</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1265108760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BEST thing the government here ever did was get rid of those firearms.</p><p>We unlike some do not worship guns, and have a much lower death rate then the US.</p><p>Note that the SA AG Atkinson has already backed down and decided to retrospectively repeal the law -without a gun in sight. It seems we have a working democracy youn dont.</p><p>Your attempt to use this issue to try<br>and justify an rant against the sensible policies we have is null and void.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BEST thing the government here ever did was get rid of those firearms.We unlike some do not worship guns , and have a much lower death rate then the US.Note that the SA AG Atkinson has already backed down and decided to retrospectively repeal the law -without a gun in sight .
It seems we have a working democracy youn dont.Your attempt to use this issue to tryand justify an rant against the sensible policies we have is null and void .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BEST thing the government here ever did was get rid of those firearms.We unlike some do not worship guns, and have a much lower death rate then the US.Note that the SA AG Atkinson has already backed down and decided to retrospectively repeal the law -without a gun in sight.
It seems we have a working democracy youn dont.Your attempt to use this issue to tryand justify an rant against the sensible policies we have is null and void.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994518</id>
	<title>Easy to forget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of the problem here is that when one is in power it is easy to forget why anonymity is important. The main worry causing anonymous speech is threat of retaliation. When one is a powerful politician, one doesn't need to worry about that as much. Moreover, since every political act politicians do is public, they have trouble understanding more general motivations behind anonymous speech. Thus, this behavior is understandable although very bad. I'm also inclined to wonder if this will apply to bloggers and people who comment on blog threads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem here is that when one is in power it is easy to forget why anonymity is important .
The main worry causing anonymous speech is threat of retaliation .
When one is a powerful politician , one does n't need to worry about that as much .
Moreover , since every political act politicians do is public , they have trouble understanding more general motivations behind anonymous speech .
Thus , this behavior is understandable although very bad .
I 'm also inclined to wonder if this will apply to bloggers and people who comment on blog threads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the problem here is that when one is in power it is easy to forget why anonymity is important.
The main worry causing anonymous speech is threat of retaliation.
When one is a powerful politician, one doesn't need to worry about that as much.
Moreover, since every political act politicians do is public, they have trouble understanding more general motivations behind anonymous speech.
Thus, this behavior is understandable although very bad.
I'm also inclined to wonder if this will apply to bloggers and people who comment on blog threads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994426</id>
	<title>Damn you George Bush!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be glad when Obama is President. Wait.......this is in Australia? Nevermind......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be glad when Obama is President .
Wait.......this is in Australia ?
Nevermind..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be glad when Obama is President.
Wait.......this is in Australia?
Nevermind......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994848</id>
	<title>Easily avoided?</title>
	<author>gorzek</author>
	<datestamp>1265124540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like it would be easy enough to get around this: set up a site for discussing for elections, and have it hosted outside South Australia. People can post as anonymously or pseudonymously as they like, and it's well outside the reach of the authorities. What an utterly useless law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like it would be easy enough to get around this : set up a site for discussing for elections , and have it hosted outside South Australia .
People can post as anonymously or pseudonymously as they like , and it 's well outside the reach of the authorities .
What an utterly useless law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like it would be easy enough to get around this: set up a site for discussing for elections, and have it hosted outside South Australia.
People can post as anonymously or pseudonymously as they like, and it's well outside the reach of the authorities.
What an utterly useless law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997314</id>
	<title>Re:What the fuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But like the Patriot Act in the US, it will be extended indefinitely...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But like the Patriot Act in the US , it will be extended indefinitely.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But like the Patriot Act in the US, it will be extended indefinitely...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996388</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Soviet Russia joke:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265130120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the same is true in the US.  As a general rule, it is not possible to go about your day without breaking some laws, usually ones that are not enforced via a nod and a wink.  Unless of course some DA wants to get you, in which case they magically start being valid laws.   Everyone in the US lives under the constant threat of immediate arrest and crippling charges if someone really wants to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the same is true in the US .
As a general rule , it is not possible to go about your day without breaking some laws , usually ones that are not enforced via a nod and a wink .
Unless of course some DA wants to get you , in which case they magically start being valid laws .
Everyone in the US lives under the constant threat of immediate arrest and crippling charges if someone really wants to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the same is true in the US.
As a general rule, it is not possible to go about your day without breaking some laws, usually ones that are not enforced via a nod and a wink.
Unless of course some DA wants to get you, in which case they magically start being valid laws.
Everyone in the US lives under the constant threat of immediate arrest and crippling charges if someone really wants to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995040</id>
	<title>Outlaw this</title>
	<author>ozbird</author>
	<datestamp>1265125440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm Australian, and I don't know who is running for the South Australian parliament.  Ergo, they must be a bunch of useless bastards.

Feel free to moderate me (+1, Rebel.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Australian , and I do n't know who is running for the South Australian parliament .
Ergo , they must be a bunch of useless bastards .
Feel free to moderate me ( + 1 , Rebel .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Australian, and I don't know who is running for the South Australian parliament.
Ergo, they must be a bunch of useless bastards.
Feel free to moderate me (+1, Rebel.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996074</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1265129040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for Facebook</p></div></blockquote><p>And they'll find out the same thing.  My name and address.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for FacebookAnd they 'll find out the same thing .
My name and address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for FacebookAnd they'll find out the same thing.
My name and address.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996098</id>
	<title>Re:This is common sense, guys</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1265129100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>This is no infringement on free speech. Yes, anonymity may be useful if you're blowing the whistle on wrong-doing by the powerful, but in normal political debate anonymity is a bad thing. When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view, how do you know whether it's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets? How do you know whether it's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs?</i> </p><p>Well, that certainly explains a lot. Why is the Obama administration turning its back on returning to the Moon?</p><p>Clearly, one loon with 999 sock puppets has succeeded in convincing the powers-that-be that the initial moon landing never happened! The conspiracy theorists have won! OMG! Witness the terrible power of anonymous sockpuppetry!!!!111one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is no infringement on free speech .
Yes , anonymity may be useful if you 're blowing the whistle on wrong-doing by the powerful , but in normal political debate anonymity is a bad thing .
When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view , how do you know whether it 's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets ?
How do you know whether it 's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs ?
Well , that certainly explains a lot .
Why is the Obama administration turning its back on returning to the Moon ? Clearly , one loon with 999 sock puppets has succeeded in convincing the powers-that-be that the initial moon landing never happened !
The conspiracy theorists have won !
OMG ! Witness the terrible power of anonymous sockpuppetry ! ! !
! 111one</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is no infringement on free speech.
Yes, anonymity may be useful if you're blowing the whistle on wrong-doing by the powerful, but in normal political debate anonymity is a bad thing.
When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view, how do you know whether it's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets?
How do you know whether it's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs?
Well, that certainly explains a lot.
Why is the Obama administration turning its back on returning to the Moon?Clearly, one loon with 999 sock puppets has succeeded in convincing the powers-that-be that the initial moon landing never happened!
The conspiracy theorists have won!
OMG! Witness the terrible power of anonymous sockpuppetry!!!
!111one</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994936</id>
	<title>Re:Enforceability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be forgetting the Great Australian Firewall that the Aussies are working on implementing:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_censorship\_in\_Australia</p><p>As soon as the government can shut down your Wordpress blog by blacklisting it, you'll either have to give up political speech entirely or opt for a non-anonymous blog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be forgetting the Great Australian Firewall that the Aussies are working on implementing : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet \ _censorship \ _in \ _AustraliaAs soon as the government can shut down your Wordpress blog by blacklisting it , you 'll either have to give up political speech entirely or opt for a non-anonymous blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be forgetting the Great Australian Firewall that the Aussies are working on implementing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_censorship\_in\_AustraliaAs soon as the government can shut down your Wordpress blog by blacklisting it, you'll either have to give up political speech entirely or opt for a non-anonymous blog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994922</id>
	<title>Next</title>
	<author>devnullkac</author>
	<datestamp>1265124960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next up: no more anonymous voting.  As Attorney-General Michael Atkinson might say:</p><blockquote><div><p>There is no impinging on the freedom to vote, people are free to vote for whomever they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next up : no more anonymous voting .
As Attorney-General Michael Atkinson might say : There is no impinging on the freedom to vote , people are free to vote for whomever they wish as themselves , not as somebody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next up: no more anonymous voting.
As Attorney-General Michael Atkinson might say:There is no impinging on the freedom to vote, people are free to vote for whomever they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995150</id>
	<title>Re:This is common sense, guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And? If an online article has a thousand comments supporting one view, what of it? Do you really have such little faith in the general public (a small minority of which even read all the comments on an online news article) that you believe they're going to become confused and change their vote because Anonymous Coward 1, 2, and 3 all say they should?<br> <br>

Why don't we just publish everyone's votes after the next election? After all, people should be prepared to put their name to their opinion shouldn't they?<br> <br>

Protect freedom? I don't think so. It's just another example of Australian politicians deciding that they are better than the average joe, and have to protect the public <i>from</i> freedom by denying it to them. The internet filter is the best example. Why the fuck didn't our founders write a constitution!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And ?
If an online article has a thousand comments supporting one view , what of it ?
Do you really have such little faith in the general public ( a small minority of which even read all the comments on an online news article ) that you believe they 're going to become confused and change their vote because Anonymous Coward 1 , 2 , and 3 all say they should ?
Why do n't we just publish everyone 's votes after the next election ?
After all , people should be prepared to put their name to their opinion should n't they ?
Protect freedom ?
I do n't think so .
It 's just another example of Australian politicians deciding that they are better than the average joe , and have to protect the public from freedom by denying it to them .
The internet filter is the best example .
Why the fuck did n't our founders write a constitution !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And?
If an online article has a thousand comments supporting one view, what of it?
Do you really have such little faith in the general public (a small minority of which even read all the comments on an online news article) that you believe they're going to become confused and change their vote because Anonymous Coward 1, 2, and 3 all say they should?
Why don't we just publish everyone's votes after the next election?
After all, people should be prepared to put their name to their opinion shouldn't they?
Protect freedom?
I don't think so.
It's just another example of Australian politicians deciding that they are better than the average joe, and have to protect the public from freedom by denying it to them.
The internet filter is the best example.
Why the fuck didn't our founders write a constitution!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31041836</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265378160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, is it fair to say that you support free speech for corporations, but only if said corporation happens to own/operate a media organization?</p><p>That's the bottom line of <i>Citizens United</i>: that there is no constitutional basis for making such distinctions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is it fair to say that you support free speech for corporations , but only if said corporation happens to own/operate a media organization ? That 's the bottom line of Citizens United : that there is no constitutional basis for making such distinctions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is it fair to say that you support free speech for corporations, but only if said corporation happens to own/operate a media organization?That's the bottom line of Citizens United: that there is no constitutional basis for making such distinctions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995358</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask scientology guys<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask scientology guys : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask scientology guys :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997180</id>
	<title>Re:My views</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi Steve!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi Steve !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi Steve!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995082</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonomously post cartoon kiddie porn in the editorial blogs hoping that it won't all be censored before some one sees it.</p><p>Just think of this as a big employment project in Australia.  They're going to have to hire a whole whack of new thought and identity police to enforce all the new laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonomously post cartoon kiddie porn in the editorial blogs hoping that it wo n't all be censored before some one sees it.Just think of this as a big employment project in Australia .
They 're going to have to hire a whole whack of new thought and identity police to enforce all the new laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonomously post cartoon kiddie porn in the editorial blogs hoping that it won't all be censored before some one sees it.Just think of this as a big employment project in Australia.
They're going to have to hire a whole whack of new thought and identity police to enforce all the new laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002104</id>
	<title>This decision has now been overturned</title>
	<author>chrism238</author>
	<datestamp>1265110080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>cf:  <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2808495.htm" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2808495.htm</a> [abc.net.au]

"South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson admits he misjudged public opinion on the state's attempt to curb political comment on the internet.

Mr Atkinson says he will repeal a law which would have meant that anyone posting comment or blogs during an election period would have had to give their real name and postcode."</htmltext>
<tokenext>cf : http : //www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2808495.htm [ abc.net.au ] " South Australia 's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson admits he misjudged public opinion on the state 's attempt to curb political comment on the internet .
Mr Atkinson says he will repeal a law which would have meant that anyone posting comment or blogs during an election period would have had to give their real name and postcode .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cf:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2808495.htm [abc.net.au]

"South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson admits he misjudged public opinion on the state's attempt to curb political comment on the internet.
Mr Atkinson says he will repeal a law which would have meant that anyone posting comment or blogs during an election period would have had to give their real name and postcode.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488</id>
	<title>I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, there's Thomas Payne, who would have hanged had the British known who was posting those flyers. Anonymity is part of free speech.</p><p>OTOH, if you hear something good about a candidate, it's good to know that it was an oil company executive or an RIAA goon who who is so enthusiastic about that particular politician.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have mixed emotions about this .
On the one hand , there 's Thomas Payne , who would have hanged had the British known who was posting those flyers .
Anonymity is part of free speech.OTOH , if you hear something good about a candidate , it 's good to know that it was an oil company executive or an RIAA goon who who is so enthusiastic about that particular politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have mixed emotions about this.
On the one hand, there's Thomas Payne, who would have hanged had the British known who was posting those flyers.
Anonymity is part of free speech.OTOH, if you hear something good about a candidate, it's good to know that it was an oil company executive or an RIAA goon who who is so enthusiastic about that particular politician.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31004038</id>
	<title>Overturned!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Announced today, 3rd Feb, this is to be overturned.</p><p>The Sth Australian Attorney General descibed it as a "humiliating" turnaround. The outcry was too powerful. Good on ya Sth Aussie citizens!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Announced today , 3rd Feb , this is to be overturned.The Sth Australian Attorney General descibed it as a " humiliating " turnaround .
The outcry was too powerful .
Good on ya Sth Aussie citizens !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Announced today, 3rd Feb, this is to be overturned.The Sth Australian Attorney General descibed it as a "humiliating" turnaround.
The outcry was too powerful.
Good on ya Sth Aussie citizens!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999040</id>
	<title>Re:Feh</title>
	<author>Marxist Hacker 42</author>
	<datestamp>1265139240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given how anonymous bankers nearly took down the entire worldwide financial industry, I'm not so sure anonymity isn't a freedom that we as a species have proven to be incapable of not abusing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given how anonymous bankers nearly took down the entire worldwide financial industry , I 'm not so sure anonymity is n't a freedom that we as a species have proven to be incapable of not abusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given how anonymous bankers nearly took down the entire worldwide financial industry, I'm not so sure anonymity isn't a freedom that we as a species have proven to be incapable of not abusing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994738</id>
	<title>Re:Well hitler was australian wasn't he?</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1265124060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dunno, tried the White Pages, couldn't find any. Couldn't be stuffed looking further.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno , tried the White Pages , could n't find any .
Could n't be stuffed looking further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno, tried the White Pages, couldn't find any.
Couldn't be stuffed looking further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998628</id>
	<title>where is fastmail.fm located</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard it was Australian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard it was Australian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard it was Australian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995604</id>
	<title>Aussie Mates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do know why everyone in Australia calls each other "mate", don't you?</p><p>It's short for Inmate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know why everyone in Australia calls each other " mate " , do n't you ? It 's short for Inmate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know why everyone in Australia calls each other "mate", don't you?It's short for Inmate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000194</id>
	<title>Federalist Papers anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265144040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several of the US founding fathers wrote the federalist papers anonymously. They would be appalled by this law. Unfortunately I could still see something like this happening here because few people know anything about history anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several of the US founding fathers wrote the federalist papers anonymously .
They would be appalled by this law .
Unfortunately I could still see something like this happening here because few people know anything about history anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several of the US founding fathers wrote the federalist papers anonymously.
They would be appalled by this law.
Unfortunately I could still see something like this happening here because few people know anything about history anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996210</id>
	<title>Re:system</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265129520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, you're fucked. In pretty much all European countries, large parties grow and shrink even though they rarely fall completely. For example, here in Norway in 2001 Ap acted like an ass and went from 35\% to 24\% in the election. In 2005 H&oslash;yre lost 7.1\% and FrP gained 7.5\%, shifting which was the biggest right wing party.</p><p>It may not shift the overall balance, but US politics would be way different if they had to fear the "New democrats" or "New republicans" taking their seats, not just the antichrist on the other side. Australia, seems to have some fucked up variation of the same, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_federal\_election,\_2007" title="wikipedia.org">this page</a> [wikipedia.org] the Greens got 7.79\% of the votes and zero seats. That is defective democracy by design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , you 're fucked .
In pretty much all European countries , large parties grow and shrink even though they rarely fall completely .
For example , here in Norway in 2001 Ap acted like an ass and went from 35 \ % to 24 \ % in the election .
In 2005 H   yre lost 7.1 \ % and FrP gained 7.5 \ % , shifting which was the biggest right wing party.It may not shift the overall balance , but US politics would be way different if they had to fear the " New democrats " or " New republicans " taking their seats , not just the antichrist on the other side .
Australia , seems to have some fucked up variation of the same , according to this page [ wikipedia.org ] the Greens got 7.79 \ % of the votes and zero seats .
That is defective democracy by design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, you're fucked.
In pretty much all European countries, large parties grow and shrink even though they rarely fall completely.
For example, here in Norway in 2001 Ap acted like an ass and went from 35\% to 24\% in the election.
In 2005 Høyre lost 7.1\% and FrP gained 7.5\%, shifting which was the biggest right wing party.It may not shift the overall balance, but US politics would be way different if they had to fear the "New democrats" or "New republicans" taking their seats, not just the antichrist on the other side.
Australia, seems to have some fucked up variation of the same, according to this page [wikipedia.org] the Greens got 7.79\% of the votes and zero seats.
That is defective democracy by design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994576</id>
	<title>Enforceability</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1265123220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The commentary at the bottom of <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/labor-gags-internet-debate/story-fn2sdwup-1225825708827" title="adelaidenow.com.au">this article</a> [adelaidenow.com.au] says it all I think<p><div class="quote"><p>John Quiggin, a long-time blogger and Research Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland, doubted whether the laws were enforceable.

"They can pass as draconian law as they like, but without the capacity to impose their own internet censorship it's going to be a dead lemon," he said.

"Anyone who wants to can set up an anonymous blog.

"It will be totally ineffectual with someone who sets up a Wordpress blog post in the US under a false name and publish whatever they want."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The commentary at the bottom of this article [ adelaidenow.com.au ] says it all I thinkJohn Quiggin , a long-time blogger and Research Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland , doubted whether the laws were enforceable .
" They can pass as draconian law as they like , but without the capacity to impose their own internet censorship it 's going to be a dead lemon , " he said .
" Anyone who wants to can set up an anonymous blog .
" It will be totally ineffectual with someone who sets up a Wordpress blog post in the US under a false name and publish whatever they want .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The commentary at the bottom of this article [adelaidenow.com.au] says it all I thinkJohn Quiggin, a long-time blogger and Research Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland, doubted whether the laws were enforceable.
"They can pass as draconian law as they like, but without the capacity to impose their own internet censorship it's going to be a dead lemon," he said.
"Anyone who wants to can set up an anonymous blog.
"It will be totally ineffectual with someone who sets up a Wordpress blog post in the US under a false name and publish whatever they want.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995200</id>
	<title>If Anyone Wants</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       For a small fee I would publish any political content from the US concerning Australia under my own name. So much for their laws!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a small fee I would publish any political content from the US concerning Australia under my own name .
So much for their laws !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       For a small fee I would publish any political content from the US concerning Australia under my own name.
So much for their laws!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994812</id>
	<title>No secret ballot, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't have an anonymous opinion, why not go all the way and publish people's names and how they voted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't have an anonymous opinion , why not go all the way and publish people 's names and how they voted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't have an anonymous opinion, why not go all the way and publish people's names and how they voted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996694</id>
	<title>Australia</title>
	<author>shadowrat</author>
	<datestamp>1265131140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662</id>
	<title>Ironic</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1265123760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>since this is the country that first made the secret ballot mainstream.</p><p>I have a better idea for reforming Western politics: allow anonymous speech, but get rid of anonymous voting, especially on referenda.</p><p>If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want the government to personally assess you a new tax so you can put your money where your mouth is if I decide to vote "no" on it.</p><p>The fact of the matter is that secret ballots don't protect people from reprisal where it counts. If an employer wants to fire you for your views, they'll find out soon enough based on conversations at work. Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for Facebook, etc. so there is no point in even wasting one's breath trying to preemptively stop them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since this is the country that first made the secret ballot mainstream.I have a better idea for reforming Western politics : allow anonymous speech , but get rid of anonymous voting , especially on referenda.If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond , I want the government to personally assess you a new tax so you can put your money where your mouth is if I decide to vote " no " on it.The fact of the matter is that secret ballots do n't protect people from reprisal where it counts .
If an employer wants to fire you for your views , they 'll find out soon enough based on conversations at work .
Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for Facebook , etc .
so there is no point in even wasting one 's breath trying to preemptively stop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since this is the country that first made the secret ballot mainstream.I have a better idea for reforming Western politics: allow anonymous speech, but get rid of anonymous voting, especially on referenda.If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want the government to personally assess you a new tax so you can put your money where your mouth is if I decide to vote "no" on it.The fact of the matter is that secret ballots don't protect people from reprisal where it counts.
If an employer wants to fire you for your views, they'll find out soon enough based on conversations at work.
Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for Facebook, etc.
so there is no point in even wasting one's breath trying to preemptively stop them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998466</id>
	<title>Why not anonymous?</title>
	<author>Mister Fright</author>
	<datestamp>1265136960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reasoning is to stop identity fraud, so why outlaw anonymous commenting?</p><p>Even if that is the intent, are Australians really that easily swayed by comments on a blog?</p><p>But the fact that the law lapses at 6PM on polling day suggests that isn't really the intent of the law.  Might as well pass something that says, "You are not allowed to say bad stuff about me until I'm elected again."</p><p>If you are afraid to speak when you can be identified, then your speech isn't free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reasoning is to stop identity fraud , so why outlaw anonymous commenting ? Even if that is the intent , are Australians really that easily swayed by comments on a blog ? But the fact that the law lapses at 6PM on polling day suggests that is n't really the intent of the law .
Might as well pass something that says , " You are not allowed to say bad stuff about me until I 'm elected again .
" If you are afraid to speak when you can be identified , then your speech is n't free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reasoning is to stop identity fraud, so why outlaw anonymous commenting?Even if that is the intent, are Australians really that easily swayed by comments on a blog?But the fact that the law lapses at 6PM on polling day suggests that isn't really the intent of the law.
Might as well pass something that says, "You are not allowed to say bad stuff about me until I'm elected again.
"If you are afraid to speak when you can be identified, then your speech isn't free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998702</id>
	<title>Re:oblig</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1265137920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the plus side, Freenet is coming along nicely.  The network itself has gotten far more efficient, and 0.8 is due to be released soon.  The freetalk (robust forum system) and web of trust (user moderation) are in beta now,  but will be in the 0.8 release, and make it far more accessible than before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the plus side , Freenet is coming along nicely .
The network itself has gotten far more efficient , and 0.8 is due to be released soon .
The freetalk ( robust forum system ) and web of trust ( user moderation ) are in beta now , but will be in the 0.8 release , and make it far more accessible than before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the plus side, Freenet is coming along nicely.
The network itself has gotten far more efficient, and 0.8 is due to be released soon.
The freetalk (robust forum system) and web of trust (user moderation) are in beta now,  but will be in the 0.8 release, and make it far more accessible than before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995054</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Soviet Russia joke:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.</p></div><p>Wasn't Australia originally established as a penal colony? So really, the criminals' descendants  are running around free!</p><p>Ghads!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal , take your pick which laws you 're breaking at any one time.Was n't Australia originally established as a penal colony ?
So really , the criminals ' descendants are running around free ! Ghads !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.Wasn't Australia originally established as a penal colony?
So really, the criminals' descendants  are running around free!Ghads!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994686</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thomas Payne, who would have hanged had the British known who was posting those flyers. Anonymity is part of free speech.</p></div><p>If you need to be anonymous to exercise free speech, that is not free speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Payne , who would have hanged had the British known who was posting those flyers .
Anonymity is part of free speech.If you need to be anonymous to exercise free speech , that is not free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Payne, who would have hanged had the British known who was posting those flyers.
Anonymity is part of free speech.If you need to be anonymous to exercise free speech, that is not free speech.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994592</id>
	<title>So, homeless people are out of luck?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So people without a postal code can't comment?  I thought only the USA did that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So people without a postal code ca n't comment ?
I thought only the USA did that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So people without a postal code can't comment?
I thought only the USA did that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31004128</id>
	<title>Re:This decision has now been overturned</title>
	<author>SpiceInvaders</author>
	<datestamp>1265122080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a Yank maybe I'm not up on the intricacies of Australian jurisprudence but I am curious as to how an individual (even if he/she is the AG) can repeal a law all by his/her self?  Don't you guys have courts or parliament or balance of power or something like that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Yank maybe I 'm not up on the intricacies of Australian jurisprudence but I am curious as to how an individual ( even if he/she is the AG ) can repeal a law all by his/her self ?
Do n't you guys have courts or parliament or balance of power or something like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Yank maybe I'm not up on the intricacies of Australian jurisprudence but I am curious as to how an individual (even if he/she is the AG) can repeal a law all by his/her self?
Don't you guys have courts or parliament or balance of power or something like that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994524</id>
	<title>Message !=messenger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Address the message, not the messenger.</p><p>Anonymity separates the message from the messenger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Address the message , not the messenger.Anonymity separates the message from the messenger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Address the message, not the messenger.Anonymity separates the message from the messenger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997502</id>
	<title>Re:MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This link is awesome because it gives the rationale for the law by Mr. Atkinson:</p><p><i>"He said the new law was necessary because people such as Aaron Fornarino, who regularly posts comments on AdelaideNow, were Liberal Party plants."</i></p><p>Wow. Just... wow. How did you guys manage to get your local Rush Limbaugh in a position where he has considerable power?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This link is awesome because it gives the rationale for the law by Mr. Atkinson : " He said the new law was necessary because people such as Aaron Fornarino , who regularly posts comments on AdelaideNow , were Liberal Party plants. " Wow .
Just... wow .
How did you guys manage to get your local Rush Limbaugh in a position where he has considerable power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This link is awesome because it gives the rationale for the law by Mr. Atkinson:"He said the new law was necessary because people such as Aaron Fornarino, who regularly posts comments on AdelaideNow, were Liberal Party plants."Wow.
Just... wow.
How did you guys manage to get your local Rush Limbaugh in a position where he has considerable power?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997014</id>
	<title>Re:My views</title>
	<author>zookeeperme</author>
	<datestamp>1265132220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God help you if you've got small breasts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God help you if you 've got small breasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God help you if you've got small breasts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001458</id>
	<title>Re:It should not matter who voices the opinion</title>
	<author>KeensMustard</author>
	<datestamp>1265106420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People accept views in line with their own usually without regard to source. Far too many put any effort in determining if quotes are from the actual source let alone what some of the those groups with fancy names really represent.</p></div><p>What if the source was Islamic extremists?

In the last federal election an operative of the Liberal party published a pamphlet purporting to be from an Islamic organisation to it's members - supporting the Labor party. Also the following has occurred:
</p><ol> <li>Editors from certain right wing newspapers have published editorials, and then published letters from non-existent members of the public in support of those editorials</li><li>Paid operatives of both major parties have rung in to radio shows to pose questions to opposing candidates, claiming to be someone else</li></ol><p>

This legislation is a somewhat clumsy attempt to prevent those forms of identity abuse. </p><p>
Also worth noting is that the identity information can only be obtained by the <i>Electoral Commission</i>. The Electoral Commission is not part of the government in the sense that the political machines of the various parties cannot apply any pressure or influence. So for example if I express a political opinion about the South Australian election and it happens that my identity is  on file. The media organisation does not have to hand my identity over to anyone but the Commissioner - not to the police, and certainly not to a political party or the government. And the government cannot pressure the Commissioner to act in a way that might influence the outcome of the electoral process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People accept views in line with their own usually without regard to source .
Far too many put any effort in determining if quotes are from the actual source let alone what some of the those groups with fancy names really represent.What if the source was Islamic extremists ?
In the last federal election an operative of the Liberal party published a pamphlet purporting to be from an Islamic organisation to it 's members - supporting the Labor party .
Also the following has occurred : Editors from certain right wing newspapers have published editorials , and then published letters from non-existent members of the public in support of those editorialsPaid operatives of both major parties have rung in to radio shows to pose questions to opposing candidates , claiming to be someone else This legislation is a somewhat clumsy attempt to prevent those forms of identity abuse .
Also worth noting is that the identity information can only be obtained by the Electoral Commission .
The Electoral Commission is not part of the government in the sense that the political machines of the various parties can not apply any pressure or influence .
So for example if I express a political opinion about the South Australian election and it happens that my identity is on file .
The media organisation does not have to hand my identity over to anyone but the Commissioner - not to the police , and certainly not to a political party or the government .
And the government can not pressure the Commissioner to act in a way that might influence the outcome of the electoral process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People accept views in line with their own usually without regard to source.
Far too many put any effort in determining if quotes are from the actual source let alone what some of the those groups with fancy names really represent.What if the source was Islamic extremists?
In the last federal election an operative of the Liberal party published a pamphlet purporting to be from an Islamic organisation to it's members - supporting the Labor party.
Also the following has occurred:
 Editors from certain right wing newspapers have published editorials, and then published letters from non-existent members of the public in support of those editorialsPaid operatives of both major parties have rung in to radio shows to pose questions to opposing candidates, claiming to be someone else

This legislation is a somewhat clumsy attempt to prevent those forms of identity abuse.
Also worth noting is that the identity information can only be obtained by the Electoral Commission.
The Electoral Commission is not part of the government in the sense that the political machines of the various parties cannot apply any pressure or influence.
So for example if I express a political opinion about the South Australian election and it happens that my identity is  on file.
The media organisation does not have to hand my identity over to anyone but the Commissioner - not to the police, and certainly not to a political party or the government.
And the government cannot pressure the Commissioner to act in a way that might influence the outcome of the electoral process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31003666</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1265118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have a better idea for reforming Western politics: allow anonymous speech, but get rid of anonymous voting, especially on referenda.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Sorry but that is a pretty bad idea.<br> <br>

At best it will be used for gerrymandering, at worst it will be used to track down and intimidate those who voted for in opposition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a better idea for reforming Western politics : allow anonymous speech , but get rid of anonymous voting , especially on referenda .
Sorry but that is a pretty bad idea .
At best it will be used for gerrymandering , at worst it will be used to track down and intimidate those who voted for in opposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a better idea for reforming Western politics: allow anonymous speech, but get rid of anonymous voting, especially on referenda.
Sorry but that is a pretty bad idea.
At best it will be used for gerrymandering, at worst it will be used to track down and intimidate those who voted for in opposition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995948</id>
	<title>This is less about censorship than who is censored</title>
	<author>cwolfsheep</author>
	<datestamp>1265128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll say what I said on Reddit...
<br> <br>
Consider the source people: the article is hosted by News Corp in Australia, referring to an attack on its paper in South Australia, and is pimping the anti-corruption lobby it started as a source of outrage. "The Right to Know Coalition, made up of Australia's major media outlets including News Limited, publisher of The Advertiser and parent company of news.com.au, has called the new laws "draconian"." The same thing is done by having the Wall Street Journal or Times of London report something, and have Fox News run with it as a lead.
<br> <br>
And based on what the AC added earlier, they're crowing about their victory too.
<br>
<a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175" title="adelaidenow.com.au">http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175</a> [adelaidenow.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say what I said on Reddit.. . Consider the source people : the article is hosted by News Corp in Australia , referring to an attack on its paper in South Australia , and is pimping the anti-corruption lobby it started as a source of outrage .
" The Right to Know Coalition , made up of Australia 's major media outlets including News Limited , publisher of The Advertiser and parent company of news.com.au , has called the new laws " draconian " .
" The same thing is done by having the Wall Street Journal or Times of London report something , and have Fox News run with it as a lead .
And based on what the AC added earlier , they 're crowing about their victory too .
http : //www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175 [ adelaidenow.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say what I said on Reddit...
 
Consider the source people: the article is hosted by News Corp in Australia, referring to an attack on its paper in South Australia, and is pimping the anti-corruption lobby it started as a source of outrage.
"The Right to Know Coalition, made up of Australia's major media outlets including News Limited, publisher of The Advertiser and parent company of news.com.au, has called the new laws "draconian".
" The same thing is done by having the Wall Street Journal or Times of London report something, and have Fox News run with it as a lead.
And based on what the AC added earlier, they're crowing about their victory too.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175 [adelaidenow.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002252</id>
	<title>It's being repealed</title>
	<author>Namarrgon</author>
	<datestamp>1265110980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...retrospectively.</p><p>And the law's sponsor, everybody's least favorite attorney general, Michael Atkinson, has stated that the law won't be enforced.</p><p>He's right about that at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...retrospectively.And the law 's sponsor , everybody 's least favorite attorney general , Michael Atkinson , has stated that the law wo n't be enforced.He 's right about that at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...retrospectively.And the law's sponsor, everybody's least favorite attorney general, Michael Atkinson, has stated that the law won't be enforced.He's right about that at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994544</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whenever I hear something good about a candidate, I just assume it's a shill. </p><p>A politician is a liar and a cheat until proven otherwise.</p><p>You have to have a certain mentality to want to put yourself out there for power. It is all about power.</p><p>My system has <i>never</i> failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whenever I hear something good about a candidate , I just assume it 's a shill .
A politician is a liar and a cheat until proven otherwise.You have to have a certain mentality to want to put yourself out there for power .
It is all about power.My system has never failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whenever I hear something good about a candidate, I just assume it's a shill.
A politician is a liar and a cheat until proven otherwise.You have to have a certain mentality to want to put yourself out there for power.
It is all about power.My system has never failed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995754</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1265128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop it, STOP IT NOW! political ads and contributions only work because people are unwilling to look into the facts.  You are hurting democracy even more than that ruling you refer to.  Tell people THEY are responsible for who they vote for and if they don't vote well what the hell do they expect?  Even a marginally informed public would look at your Concerned Citizens org. and ask who are they.  They would form their opinion only on facts that they knew to be true, were reasonable and coherent not some scandal or decision of the moment.  "If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."  Thomas Jefferson.  Place the blame where it is due, bans on campaign contributions are only a simplistic band-aid of a solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop it , STOP IT NOW !
political ads and contributions only work because people are unwilling to look into the facts .
You are hurting democracy even more than that ruling you refer to .
Tell people THEY are responsible for who they vote for and if they do n't vote well what the hell do they expect ?
Even a marginally informed public would look at your Concerned Citizens org .
and ask who are they .
They would form their opinion only on facts that they knew to be true , were reasonable and coherent not some scandal or decision of the moment .
" If they remain quiet under such misconceptions , it is lethargy , the forerunner of death to the public liberty .
" Thomas Jefferson .
Place the blame where it is due , bans on campaign contributions are only a simplistic band-aid of a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop it, STOP IT NOW!
political ads and contributions only work because people are unwilling to look into the facts.
You are hurting democracy even more than that ruling you refer to.
Tell people THEY are responsible for who they vote for and if they don't vote well what the hell do they expect?
Even a marginally informed public would look at your Concerned Citizens org.
and ask who are they.
They would form their opinion only on facts that they knew to be true, were reasonable and coherent not some scandal or decision of the moment.
"If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
"  Thomas Jefferson.
Place the blame where it is due, bans on campaign contributions are only a simplistic band-aid of a solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996090</id>
	<title>Haul away you rolling kings!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In protest, I plan on moving to South Australia and changing my name to "Anonymous".  No surname, though I am considering "Coward" as an option.  I will have an Anonymous Political Commentary blog that sprouts ridiculous crap on an 'Anne Coulter' level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In protest , I plan on moving to South Australia and changing my name to " Anonymous " .
No surname , though I am considering " Coward " as an option .
I will have an Anonymous Political Commentary blog that sprouts ridiculous crap on an 'Anne Coulter ' level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In protest, I plan on moving to South Australia and changing my name to "Anonymous".
No surname, though I am considering "Coward" as an option.
I will have an Anonymous Political Commentary blog that sprouts ridiculous crap on an 'Anne Coulter' level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994780</id>
	<title>Federalist, aka The Federalist Papers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What will my modern-day South African spiritual counterparts do?</p><p>--Publius</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will my modern-day South African spiritual counterparts do ? --Publius</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will my modern-day South African spiritual counterparts do?--Publius</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995354</id>
	<title>The most dangerous government in SA's history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm posting anonymously for good reason - Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is known to track down people who post comments online and intimidate them with legal threats.</p><p>The current government headed by Premier Mike Rann is the most dangerous and regressive government this state has seen since it was founded in 1836. It smells rotten.</p><p>This government has passed laws that remove the presumption of innocence, restrict freedom of association and the right to a fair trial. They have gaoled prisoners due for release indefinitely, passed laws that allow the government to declare an organisation outlawed without that organisation being able to see the evidence against it. Members of the organisation can have control orders placed upon them where they face gaol for associating with other members or visiting certain places, and they are not allowed to see the evidence against them. They have passed laws allowing them to seize your assets unless you can prove you bought them legit, to confiscate and sell your car if you're a "hoon" driver.</p><p>It doesn't stop there though: they have interfered with the judiciary and regularly bully and intimidate the media, threatening to "blackban" reporters who dare to cross them. One reporter who did cross them was forced to leave the state to work for another newspaper because they couldn't do anything after being blackbanned. Another newspaper reporter was assaulted by one of the premier's army of "media minders" when he tried to ask the premier a question and then had the police called on him. Government media minders regularly phone around to reporters demanding to know where they receive their tips and to quash stories. A small army of "media monitors" constantly listen to radio stations and monitor internet forums for negative publicity and then arrange for ministers to call in to radio stations immediately and astroturf on forums.</p><p>The Rann government blatantly spends exhorbitant amounts of public money on party political advertising under the guise of "informing the public". It is in bed with developers, has stripped injured workers of their benefits and has mismanaged every public works project it has overseen with long delays and huge cost overruns. The state continues to suffer from water restrictions after seven years since they were first introduced by this government. They continue to oppose the introduction of an independent commission against corruption despite pledging transparent and accountable governance when first running for election in 2002, and Michael Atkinson has been front  and centre as Attorney-General the whole time. The man is a fool and an embarrassment to the people of this state. You can find examples of correspondence with people online.</p><p>No previous government has ever appointed non-elected people to cabinet, but Rann has. I'm just scratching the tip of the iceberg here as well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm posting anonymously for good reason - Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is known to track down people who post comments online and intimidate them with legal threats.The current government headed by Premier Mike Rann is the most dangerous and regressive government this state has seen since it was founded in 1836 .
It smells rotten.This government has passed laws that remove the presumption of innocence , restrict freedom of association and the right to a fair trial .
They have gaoled prisoners due for release indefinitely , passed laws that allow the government to declare an organisation outlawed without that organisation being able to see the evidence against it .
Members of the organisation can have control orders placed upon them where they face gaol for associating with other members or visiting certain places , and they are not allowed to see the evidence against them .
They have passed laws allowing them to seize your assets unless you can prove you bought them legit , to confiscate and sell your car if you 're a " hoon " driver.It does n't stop there though : they have interfered with the judiciary and regularly bully and intimidate the media , threatening to " blackban " reporters who dare to cross them .
One reporter who did cross them was forced to leave the state to work for another newspaper because they could n't do anything after being blackbanned .
Another newspaper reporter was assaulted by one of the premier 's army of " media minders " when he tried to ask the premier a question and then had the police called on him .
Government media minders regularly phone around to reporters demanding to know where they receive their tips and to quash stories .
A small army of " media monitors " constantly listen to radio stations and monitor internet forums for negative publicity and then arrange for ministers to call in to radio stations immediately and astroturf on forums.The Rann government blatantly spends exhorbitant amounts of public money on party political advertising under the guise of " informing the public " .
It is in bed with developers , has stripped injured workers of their benefits and has mismanaged every public works project it has overseen with long delays and huge cost overruns .
The state continues to suffer from water restrictions after seven years since they were first introduced by this government .
They continue to oppose the introduction of an independent commission against corruption despite pledging transparent and accountable governance when first running for election in 2002 , and Michael Atkinson has been front and centre as Attorney-General the whole time .
The man is a fool and an embarrassment to the people of this state .
You can find examples of correspondence with people online.No previous government has ever appointed non-elected people to cabinet , but Rann has .
I 'm just scratching the tip of the iceberg here as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm posting anonymously for good reason - Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is known to track down people who post comments online and intimidate them with legal threats.The current government headed by Premier Mike Rann is the most dangerous and regressive government this state has seen since it was founded in 1836.
It smells rotten.This government has passed laws that remove the presumption of innocence, restrict freedom of association and the right to a fair trial.
They have gaoled prisoners due for release indefinitely, passed laws that allow the government to declare an organisation outlawed without that organisation being able to see the evidence against it.
Members of the organisation can have control orders placed upon them where they face gaol for associating with other members or visiting certain places, and they are not allowed to see the evidence against them.
They have passed laws allowing them to seize your assets unless you can prove you bought them legit, to confiscate and sell your car if you're a "hoon" driver.It doesn't stop there though: they have interfered with the judiciary and regularly bully and intimidate the media, threatening to "blackban" reporters who dare to cross them.
One reporter who did cross them was forced to leave the state to work for another newspaper because they couldn't do anything after being blackbanned.
Another newspaper reporter was assaulted by one of the premier's army of "media minders" when he tried to ask the premier a question and then had the police called on him.
Government media minders regularly phone around to reporters demanding to know where they receive their tips and to quash stories.
A small army of "media monitors" constantly listen to radio stations and monitor internet forums for negative publicity and then arrange for ministers to call in to radio stations immediately and astroturf on forums.The Rann government blatantly spends exhorbitant amounts of public money on party political advertising under the guise of "informing the public".
It is in bed with developers, has stripped injured workers of their benefits and has mismanaged every public works project it has overseen with long delays and huge cost overruns.
The state continues to suffer from water restrictions after seven years since they were first introduced by this government.
They continue to oppose the introduction of an independent commission against corruption despite pledging transparent and accountable governance when first running for election in 2002, and Michael Atkinson has been front  and centre as Attorney-General the whole time.
The man is a fool and an embarrassment to the people of this state.
You can find examples of correspondence with people online.No previous government has ever appointed non-elected people to cabinet, but Rann has.
I'm just scratching the tip of the iceberg here as well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996500</id>
	<title>Re:This is common sense, guys</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1265130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't denying freedom: it's protecting freedom by preventing manipulation.</p></div><p>Thats quite frankly complete and utter bullshit. If you deny the anonymity, you basically deny the right to speak against those that are in power, as you open yourself up for direct attack and might likely be shut down if you get a little to annoying.</p><p>Manipulation is a non-issue, it doesn't matter much if person says something or a 1000 sock puppets, the ideas are out there either way. If the ideas are fundamentally wrong, debunk them and don't throw out the freedom of speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't denying freedom : it 's protecting freedom by preventing manipulation.Thats quite frankly complete and utter bullshit .
If you deny the anonymity , you basically deny the right to speak against those that are in power , as you open yourself up for direct attack and might likely be shut down if you get a little to annoying.Manipulation is a non-issue , it does n't matter much if person says something or a 1000 sock puppets , the ideas are out there either way .
If the ideas are fundamentally wrong , debunk them and do n't throw out the freedom of speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't denying freedom: it's protecting freedom by preventing manipulation.Thats quite frankly complete and utter bullshit.
If you deny the anonymity, you basically deny the right to speak against those that are in power, as you open yourself up for direct attack and might likely be shut down if you get a little to annoying.Manipulation is a non-issue, it doesn't matter much if person says something or a 1000 sock puppets, the ideas are out there either way.
If the ideas are fundamentally wrong, debunk them and don't throw out the freedom of speech.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997136</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The fact of the matter is that secret ballots don't protect people from reprisal where it counts. If an employer wants to fire you for your views, they'll find out soon enough based on conversations at work. Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for Facebook, etc. so there is no point in even wasting one's breath trying to preemptively stop them</p></div></blockquote><p>Right, because everyone always tells the whole office how they voted and also has a Facebook page where they dutifully record all their votes.</p><p>Or...you yourself are one of those "scummy" people who's inventing flimsy justifications for your fantasies about a system where you can punish people for voting the "wrong" way.</p><p>Those are the ONLY possibilities, and you've already screamed at the top of your lungs that it's the second.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact of the matter is that secret ballots do n't protect people from reprisal where it counts .
If an employer wants to fire you for your views , they 'll find out soon enough based on conversations at work .
Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for Facebook , etc .
so there is no point in even wasting one 's breath trying to preemptively stop themRight , because everyone always tells the whole office how they voted and also has a Facebook page where they dutifully record all their votes.Or...you yourself are one of those " scummy " people who 's inventing flimsy justifications for your fantasies about a system where you can punish people for voting the " wrong " way.Those are the ONLY possibilities , and you 've already screamed at the top of your lungs that it 's the second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact of the matter is that secret ballots don't protect people from reprisal where it counts.
If an employer wants to fire you for your views, they'll find out soon enough based on conversations at work.
Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for Facebook, etc.
so there is no point in even wasting one's breath trying to preemptively stop themRight, because everyone always tells the whole office how they voted and also has a Facebook page where they dutifully record all their votes.Or...you yourself are one of those "scummy" people who's inventing flimsy justifications for your fantasies about a system where you can punish people for voting the "wrong" way.Those are the ONLY possibilities, and you've already screamed at the top of your lungs that it's the second.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997610</id>
	<title>Re:They are stopping it!</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1265134140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yeah, right.
</p><p>
"The law will be repealed retrospectively." should be the first hint that this law is intended to stay on the books.
</p><p>
Secondly, even if you take that as a misquote, why would you believe a promise made by an elected politician during an election year?
</p><p>
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my &lt;/CYNICISM&gt; tag the most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
" The law will be repealed retrospectively .
" should be the first hint that this law is intended to stay on the books .
Secondly , even if you take that as a misquote , why would you believe a promise made by an elected politician during an election year ?
Of all the things I 've lost , I miss my tag the most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yeah, right.
"The law will be repealed retrospectively.
" should be the first hint that this law is intended to stay on the books.
Secondly, even if you take that as a misquote, why would you believe a promise made by an elected politician during an election year?
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my  tag the most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996458</id>
	<title>Hope it doesn't spread</title>
	<author>anorlunda</author>
	<datestamp>1265130300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In recent years European countries have more or less duplicated the Bush administration's warrantless  wiretapping.  Sweden's FRA law for example.   This suggests a trend to levelize security-related laws globally.  I sure hope that this action by South Australia is not a harbinger of similar things to come in all developed countries.</p><p>Another trend seems to be to negotiate such international cooperation in secret.  The ATCA talks for example.  Put the trends together and the future of personal freedom seems to be in great jeopardy.</p><p>If we want to avoid stupid laws written by uninformed politicians, we need to preemptively provide solutions to cyber-related problems before traditional politicians get involved.  We need a body of cyberlaw and cyberlaw enforcement independent of any country or government.</p><p>Does any such cyberlaw movement already exist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In recent years European countries have more or less duplicated the Bush administration 's warrantless wiretapping .
Sweden 's FRA law for example .
This suggests a trend to levelize security-related laws globally .
I sure hope that this action by South Australia is not a harbinger of similar things to come in all developed countries.Another trend seems to be to negotiate such international cooperation in secret .
The ATCA talks for example .
Put the trends together and the future of personal freedom seems to be in great jeopardy.If we want to avoid stupid laws written by uninformed politicians , we need to preemptively provide solutions to cyber-related problems before traditional politicians get involved .
We need a body of cyberlaw and cyberlaw enforcement independent of any country or government.Does any such cyberlaw movement already exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In recent years European countries have more or less duplicated the Bush administration's warrantless  wiretapping.
Sweden's FRA law for example.
This suggests a trend to levelize security-related laws globally.
I sure hope that this action by South Australia is not a harbinger of similar things to come in all developed countries.Another trend seems to be to negotiate such international cooperation in secret.
The ATCA talks for example.
Put the trends together and the future of personal freedom seems to be in great jeopardy.If we want to avoid stupid laws written by uninformed politicians, we need to preemptively provide solutions to cyber-related problems before traditional politicians get involved.
We need a body of cyberlaw and cyberlaw enforcement independent of any country or government.Does any such cyberlaw movement already exist?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998708</id>
	<title>Re:MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1265137980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So...</p><p>1)Politician passes hated law<br>2)People complain<br>3)Politician does 180 and says he will get law retracted after the elections<br>4)Politician gets re-elected<br>5)Profit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So...1 ) Politician passes hated law2 ) People complain3 ) Politician does 180 and says he will get law retracted after the elections4 ) Politician gets re-elected5 ) Profit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...1)Politician passes hated law2)People complain3)Politician does 180 and says he will get law retracted after the elections4)Politician gets re-elected5)Profit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999050</id>
	<title>Re:This is common sense, guys</title>
	<author>bigdavex</author>
	<datestamp>1265139300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view, how do you know whether it's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets? How do you know whether it's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs?</p><p>You don't.</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course you don't.  Since you already know that a quantity of anonymous opinions doesn't carry as much weight as the same quanitity of attributed opinions, what problem are you trying to solve by outlawing anonymous opinions?  Are you afraid that someone else might over-value the anonymous opinions?  How did the governement get the job of deciding the appropriate value to place on anonymous opinions?  I also think you're missing the importance of the quality of the anonymous speech.  The Ferderalist Papers has more value to society than thousands of "me too!" posts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view , how do you know whether it 's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets ?
How do you know whether it 's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs ? You do n't.Of course you do n't .
Since you already know that a quantity of anonymous opinions does n't carry as much weight as the same quanitity of attributed opinions , what problem are you trying to solve by outlawing anonymous opinions ?
Are you afraid that someone else might over-value the anonymous opinions ?
How did the governement get the job of deciding the appropriate value to place on anonymous opinions ?
I also think you 're missing the importance of the quality of the anonymous speech .
The Ferderalist Papers has more value to society than thousands of " me too !
" posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view, how do you know whether it's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets?
How do you know whether it's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs?You don't.Of course you don't.
Since you already know that a quantity of anonymous opinions doesn't carry as much weight as the same quanitity of attributed opinions, what problem are you trying to solve by outlawing anonymous opinions?
Are you afraid that someone else might over-value the anonymous opinions?
How did the governement get the job of deciding the appropriate value to place on anonymous opinions?
I also think you're missing the importance of the quality of the anonymous speech.
The Ferderalist Papers has more value to society than thousands of "me too!
" posts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998778</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please post links.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please post links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please post links.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31011786</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>crtreece</author>
	<datestamp>1264961340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>/b/ is not your personal army.</htmltext>
<tokenext>/b/ is not your personal army .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/b/ is not your personal army.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996364</id>
	<title>Updated Lyrics</title>
	<author>SQL Error</author>
	<datestamp>1265130000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In South Australia I was born<br>Heave away. Haul away!<br>South Australia round Cape Horn<br>We're banned in South Australia</p><p>Haul away you rolling king<br>Heave away! Haul away!<br>But never will you hear me sing -<br>We're banned in South Australia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In South Australia I was bornHeave away .
Haul away ! South Australia round Cape HornWe 're banned in South AustraliaHaul away you rolling kingHeave away !
Haul away ! But never will you hear me sing -We 're banned in South Australia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In South Australia I was bornHeave away.
Haul away!South Australia round Cape HornWe're banned in South AustraliaHaul away you rolling kingHeave away!
Haul away!But never will you hear me sing -We're banned in South Australia</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995638</id>
	<title>Re:MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The repeal of this law has been postponed until the uproar settles down and the government can quietly drop any plans to repeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The repeal of this law has been postponed until the uproar settles down and the government can quietly drop any plans to repeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The repeal of this law has been postponed until the uproar settles down and the government can quietly drop any plans to repeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994974</id>
	<title>hopefully both major parties will get a reminder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... people are stupid<br>EOF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or not ... people are stupidEOF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or not ... people are stupidEOF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994960</id>
	<title>(Unintended?) Consequences</title>
	<author>Software Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1265125020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This law is problematic even beyond the restriction to anonymous speech.  By setting specific record keeping requirements to make speech not be considered anonymous, they can label any kind of casual speech as anonymous.  Then they can supress it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This law is problematic even beyond the restriction to anonymous speech .
By setting specific record keeping requirements to make speech not be considered anonymous , they can label any kind of casual speech as anonymous .
Then they can supress it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This law is problematic even beyond the restriction to anonymous speech.
By setting specific record keeping requirements to make speech not be considered anonymous, they can label any kind of casual speech as anonymous.
Then they can supress it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998930</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1265138820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth , so Truth be in the field , we do injuriously , by licensing and prohibiting , to misdoubt her strength .
Let her and Falsehood grapple ; who ever knew Truth put to the worse , in a free and open encounter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength.
Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424</id>
	<title>They are stopping it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002488</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Soviet Russia joke:</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1265112360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know the old joke, "I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia!" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.</p></div><p>And yet the ironic thing is that South Australia is the only state not founded by convicts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the old joke , " I read my border entry form and did n't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia !
" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal , take your pick which laws you 're breaking at any one time.And yet the ironic thing is that South Australia is the only state not founded by convicts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the old joke, "I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia!
" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.And yet the ironic thing is that South Australia is the only state not founded by convicts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995692</id>
	<title>No infrigement on free speech? Come again?</title>
	<author>Errol backfiring</author>
	<datestamp>1265127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speak up, man!<br>
O, and we know where you live. What a wonderful wife you got. And such lovely kids! It would be ashamed if...<br>
But I digress. What was it you wanted to say again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speak up , man !
O , and we know where you live .
What a wonderful wife you got .
And such lovely kids !
It would be ashamed if.. . But I digress .
What was it you wanted to say again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speak up, man!
O, and we know where you live.
What a wonderful wife you got.
And such lovely kids!
It would be ashamed if...
But I digress.
What was it you wanted to say again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002404</id>
	<title>Australia becoming a communist nation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265111820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am born and bred Australian though now living in the states, tbh I am thinking of dropping my citizenship after hearing this, Australia is sounding more and more Communistic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am born and bred Australian though now living in the states , tbh I am thinking of dropping my citizenship after hearing this , Australia is sounding more and more Communistic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am born and bred Australian though now living in the states, tbh I am thinking of dropping my citizenship after hearing this, Australia is sounding more and more Communistic</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31007158</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264929240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Break South Australian law. And be unarrestable since most live in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Break South Australian law .
And be unarrestable since most live in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Break South Australian law.
And be unarrestable since most live in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994492</id>
	<title>Well hitler was australian wasn't he?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or was it austrian...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or was it austrian.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or was it austrian...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999448</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anonymous political speech outlaws you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anonymous political speech outlaws you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anonymous political speech outlaws you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994600</id>
	<title>Re:Well hitler was australian wasn't he?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hitler was a proud Australian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just like Basement Dad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hitler was a proud Australian ... just like Basement Dad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hitler was a proud Australian ... just like Basement Dad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995002</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265125200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but an oil company exec is smart enough and rich enough to conceal his identity. You're never going to see a political ad that says "Brought to you by the Exxon Corporation." Instead it will say "Brought to you by Concerned Citizens for a Reasonable Environmental Policy" (or something similar). Then, only if you dig into it, will you find out that the latter "citizens' organization" is funded by a bunch of oil companies. It's much more difficult for an individual with no resources to form a front organization.
</p><p>Laws like this one and the recent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens\_United\_v.\_Federal\_Election\_Commission" title="wikipedia.org">U.S. Supreme Court decision</a> [wikipedia.org] may well deprive the individual citizen of what little voice they already have in politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but an oil company exec is smart enough and rich enough to conceal his identity .
You 're never going to see a political ad that says " Brought to you by the Exxon Corporation .
" Instead it will say " Brought to you by Concerned Citizens for a Reasonable Environmental Policy " ( or something similar ) .
Then , only if you dig into it , will you find out that the latter " citizens ' organization " is funded by a bunch of oil companies .
It 's much more difficult for an individual with no resources to form a front organization .
Laws like this one and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision [ wikipedia.org ] may well deprive the individual citizen of what little voice they already have in politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but an oil company exec is smart enough and rich enough to conceal his identity.
You're never going to see a political ad that says "Brought to you by the Exxon Corporation.
" Instead it will say "Brought to you by Concerned Citizens for a Reasonable Environmental Policy" (or something similar).
Then, only if you dig into it, will you find out that the latter "citizens' organization" is funded by a bunch of oil companies.
It's much more difficult for an individual with no resources to form a front organization.
Laws like this one and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision [wikipedia.org] may well deprive the individual citizen of what little voice they already have in politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001780</id>
	<title>Re:Feh</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1265108400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am in South Australia.</p><p>Good news, a chastised Atkinson the AG has now backed down and promised to retrospecively repeal the censorship laws.</p><p>A win for once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in South Australia.Good news , a chastised Atkinson the AG has now backed down and promised to retrospecively repeal the censorship laws.A win for once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in South Australia.Good news, a chastised Atkinson the AG has now backed down and promised to retrospecively repeal the censorship laws.A win for once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997278</id>
	<title>Re:system</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1265133120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The west? Leave my country out of this, yes we do have our problems, but we are not a 2 party dictatorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The west ?
Leave my country out of this , yes we do have our problems , but we are not a 2 party dictatorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The west?
Leave my country out of this, yes we do have our problems, but we are not a 2 party dictatorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610</id>
	<title>What the fuck</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265123460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, just finished reading TFA and in TFA they say that this law is set to expire right after the elections are over. That's such a blatant attempt to censor for specific electoral ends it isn't funny. If there were a genuine motivation here they'd have implemented it indefinitely. This doesn't seem that different than when some countries take over or close their media right before an election. Not cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , just finished reading TFA and in TFA they say that this law is set to expire right after the elections are over .
That 's such a blatant attempt to censor for specific electoral ends it is n't funny .
If there were a genuine motivation here they 'd have implemented it indefinitely .
This does n't seem that different than when some countries take over or close their media right before an election .
Not cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, just finished reading TFA and in TFA they say that this law is set to expire right after the elections are over.
That's such a blatant attempt to censor for specific electoral ends it isn't funny.
If there were a genuine motivation here they'd have implemented it indefinitely.
This doesn't seem that different than when some countries take over or close their media right before an election.
Not cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994956</id>
	<title>How is this different...</title>
	<author>Harin\_Teb</author>
	<datestamp>1265125020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this different from laws we have in the US where we require people in public protests to be "unmasked"?  Example: The KKK used to do their marches in the full hoods and robes.  states started passing laws requiring their faces to be revealed during their marches in order to "shame them" into not doing it.  Those laws were ruled constitutional because their right to speak is impinged in any way shape or form.</p><p>I'm failing to see how this is different.  A right to speak is not the same as a right to speak anonymously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from laws we have in the US where we require people in public protests to be " unmasked " ?
Example : The KKK used to do their marches in the full hoods and robes .
states started passing laws requiring their faces to be revealed during their marches in order to " shame them " into not doing it .
Those laws were ruled constitutional because their right to speak is impinged in any way shape or form.I 'm failing to see how this is different .
A right to speak is not the same as a right to speak anonymously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from laws we have in the US where we require people in public protests to be "unmasked"?
Example: The KKK used to do their marches in the full hoods and robes.
states started passing laws requiring their faces to be revealed during their marches in order to "shame them" into not doing it.
Those laws were ruled constitutional because their right to speak is impinged in any way shape or form.I'm failing to see how this is different.
A right to speak is not the same as a right to speak anonymously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994530</id>
	<title>Breakin the law...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll never catch me, you bastards!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll never catch me , you bastards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll never catch me, you bastards!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995606</id>
	<title>Ban me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This comment is illegal in South Australia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This comment is illegal in South Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comment is illegal in South Australia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995686</id>
	<title>Wrong mods...</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1265127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...parent post needs to be modded insightful and informative more than funny.</p><p>Think about it for a minute...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...parent post needs to be modded insightful and informative more than funny.Think about it for a minute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...parent post needs to be modded insightful and informative more than funny.Think about it for a minute...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999690</id>
	<title>Re:oblig</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1265141820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While outlawing anonymity sucks, this construct sucks, too. You can use it for almost everything, for example: "if wanking is outlawed, only outlaws will masturbate".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While outlawing anonymity sucks , this construct sucks , too .
You can use it for almost everything , for example : " if wanking is outlawed , only outlaws will masturbate " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While outlawing anonymity sucks, this construct sucks, too.
You can use it for almost everything, for example: "if wanking is outlawed, only outlaws will masturbate".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001890</id>
	<title>Re:system</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1265109000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the US, you're fucked. In pretty much all European countries, large parties grow and shrink even though they rarely fall completely.</p></div><p>I am from Europe and I feel the same about our parties. So you have 5 parties instead of 2. Does it really make a difference? Will you put your vote somewhere else because of one issue? Even if you do, does it make a difference when the party you voted for instead then forms a coalition with the party you wanted to punish?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , you 're fucked .
In pretty much all European countries , large parties grow and shrink even though they rarely fall completely.I am from Europe and I feel the same about our parties .
So you have 5 parties instead of 2 .
Does it really make a difference ?
Will you put your vote somewhere else because of one issue ?
Even if you do , does it make a difference when the party you voted for instead then forms a coalition with the party you wanted to punish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, you're fucked.
In pretty much all European countries, large parties grow and shrink even though they rarely fall completely.I am from Europe and I feel the same about our parties.
So you have 5 parties instead of 2.
Does it really make a difference?
Will you put your vote somewhere else because of one issue?
Even if you do, does it make a difference when the party you voted for instead then forms a coalition with the party you wanted to punish?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554</id>
	<title>Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>spywhere</author>
	<datestamp>1265123160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The rest of the English-speaking world should start posting anonymous political comments in South Australian Web sites. Maybe 4Chan should get involved...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the English-speaking world should start posting anonymous political comments in South Australian Web sites .
Maybe 4Chan should get involved.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the English-speaking world should start posting anonymous political comments in South Australian Web sites.
Maybe 4Chan should get involved...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995100</id>
	<title>Comments through foreign proxies</title>
	<author>jr0dy</author>
	<datestamp>1265125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should organize a web community through which Aussies tell us foreigners what they want us to post, and we go post it on their behalf.  This is insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should organize a web community through which Aussies tell us foreigners what they want us to post , and we go post it on their behalf .
This is insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should organize a web community through which Aussies tell us foreigners what they want us to post, and we go post it on their behalf.
This is insane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995888</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long cat is long, LOL MUDKIPS, *bwaaa* why am I still a virgin posting on an internet forum.</p><p>4chan is a bunch of unfunny nerdy teenagers spitting out memes created by other slightly more creative nerdy 20 somethings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long cat is long , LOL MUDKIPS , * bwaaa * why am I still a virgin posting on an internet forum.4chan is a bunch of unfunny nerdy teenagers spitting out memes created by other slightly more creative nerdy 20 somethings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long cat is long, LOL MUDKIPS, *bwaaa* why am I still a virgin posting on an internet forum.4chan is a bunch of unfunny nerdy teenagers spitting out memes created by other slightly more creative nerdy 20 somethings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994804</id>
	<title>Fortunately, the U.S. SCOTUS Disagrees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."</p><p>Of course, Scalia and Thomas disagreed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority .
" Of course , Scalia and Thomas disagreed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
"Of course, Scalia and Thomas disagreed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31003686</id>
	<title>Re:What the fuck</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1265118840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ok, just finished reading TFA and in TFA they say that this law is set to expire right after the elections are over.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is just Atkinson and co becoming scared of competition. The problem is that (for them) this doesn't change anything. Banning anonymous speech wont stop it, this is primarily to scare whistle-blowers but there are national whistle-blower protection laws and all you need to do is blow said whistle from another state and return after the election (or use a proxy).<br> <br>

This doesn't change anything for Atkinson's opponents, Gamers 4 Croydon, who have fielded a candidate against Atkinson don't really want to be anonymous and things like this only help them gain notoriety. This is a good thing (TM) as it turns public opinion against Atkinson and the incumbent government in SA, not that they werent doing a good enough job of that before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , just finished reading TFA and in TFA they say that this law is set to expire right after the elections are over .
This is just Atkinson and co becoming scared of competition .
The problem is that ( for them ) this does n't change anything .
Banning anonymous speech wont stop it , this is primarily to scare whistle-blowers but there are national whistle-blower protection laws and all you need to do is blow said whistle from another state and return after the election ( or use a proxy ) .
This does n't change anything for Atkinson 's opponents , Gamers 4 Croydon , who have fielded a candidate against Atkinson do n't really want to be anonymous and things like this only help them gain notoriety .
This is a good thing ( TM ) as it turns public opinion against Atkinson and the incumbent government in SA , not that they werent doing a good enough job of that before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, just finished reading TFA and in TFA they say that this law is set to expire right after the elections are over.
This is just Atkinson and co becoming scared of competition.
The problem is that (for them) this doesn't change anything.
Banning anonymous speech wont stop it, this is primarily to scare whistle-blowers but there are national whistle-blower protection laws and all you need to do is blow said whistle from another state and return after the election (or use a proxy).
This doesn't change anything for Atkinson's opponents, Gamers 4 Croydon, who have fielded a candidate against Atkinson don't really want to be anonymous and things like this only help them gain notoriety.
This is a good thing (TM) as it turns public opinion against Atkinson and the incumbent government in SA, not that they werent doing a good enough job of that before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994790</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1265124300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe 4Chan should get involved...</p></div><p>The problem with this is, no one would be able to recognize those statements as anything political.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe 4Chan should get involved...The problem with this is , no one would be able to recognize those statements as anything political .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe 4Chan should get involved...The problem with this is, no one would be able to recognize those statements as anything political.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898</id>
	<title>This is common sense, guys</title>
	<author>Simon Brooke</author>
	<datestamp>1265124780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is no infringement on free speech. Yes, anonymity may be useful if you're blowing the whistle on wrong-doing by the powerful, but in normal political debate anonymity is a bad thing. When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view, how do you know whether it's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets? How do you know whether it's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs?</p><p>You don't.</p><p>This law doesn't stop anyone expressing any political opinion they like. All it does is require that they are prepared to put their name to it.</p><p>This isn't denying freedom: it's protecting freedom by preventing manipulation.</p><p>(And no, I'm not going to 'post anonymously')</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is no infringement on free speech .
Yes , anonymity may be useful if you 're blowing the whistle on wrong-doing by the powerful , but in normal political debate anonymity is a bad thing .
When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view , how do you know whether it 's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets ?
How do you know whether it 's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs ? You do n't.This law does n't stop anyone expressing any political opinion they like .
All it does is require that they are prepared to put their name to it.This is n't denying freedom : it 's protecting freedom by preventing manipulation .
( And no , I 'm not going to 'post anonymously ' )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is no infringement on free speech.
Yes, anonymity may be useful if you're blowing the whistle on wrong-doing by the powerful, but in normal political debate anonymity is a bad thing.
When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view, how do you know whether it's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets?
How do you know whether it's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs?You don't.This law doesn't stop anyone expressing any political opinion they like.
All it does is require that they are prepared to put their name to it.This isn't denying freedom: it's protecting freedom by preventing manipulation.
(And no, I'm not going to 'post anonymously')</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994564</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175" title="adelaidenow.com.au">Attorney-General Michael Atkinson vows to repeal election internet censorship law amid reader furore</a> [adelaidenow.com.au]</p><p>Slashdot's a little behind today, it seems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attorney-General Michael Atkinson vows to repeal election internet censorship law amid reader furore [ adelaidenow.com.au ] Slashdot 's a little behind today , it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attorney-General Michael Atkinson vows to repeal election internet censorship law amid reader furore [adelaidenow.com.au]Slashdot's a little behind today, it seems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31008100</id>
	<title>Democracy and anonymity</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1264940280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't how people came to believe in this superstition: That anonymity is a basic, human right of fundamental importance to democracy. You have a right to cast your vote secretly, but that is about all, and that is all that is needed.</p><p>There are many good reasons why all political activity should be above board. Otherwise, how can we guard our society against things like powerful money interests posing as the views of "concerned citizens"? Or how about this one: A hostile, foreign nation spreading propaganda?</p><p>Apart from that, freedom of speech means that you have the right to the protection of the law, when you express your opinions. If you wan't anonymity, it must be because you don't believe that you are protected by that guarantee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't how people came to believe in this superstition : That anonymity is a basic , human right of fundamental importance to democracy .
You have a right to cast your vote secretly , but that is about all , and that is all that is needed.There are many good reasons why all political activity should be above board .
Otherwise , how can we guard our society against things like powerful money interests posing as the views of " concerned citizens " ?
Or how about this one : A hostile , foreign nation spreading propaganda ? Apart from that , freedom of speech means that you have the right to the protection of the law , when you express your opinions .
If you wa n't anonymity , it must be because you do n't believe that you are protected by that guarantee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't how people came to believe in this superstition: That anonymity is a basic, human right of fundamental importance to democracy.
You have a right to cast your vote secretly, but that is about all, and that is all that is needed.There are many good reasons why all political activity should be above board.
Otherwise, how can we guard our society against things like powerful money interests posing as the views of "concerned citizens"?
Or how about this one: A hostile, foreign nation spreading propaganda?Apart from that, freedom of speech means that you have the right to the protection of the law, when you express your opinions.
If you wan't anonymity, it must be because you don't believe that you are protected by that guarantee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994588</id>
	<title>Common Sense</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1265123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thomas Paine would not approve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Paine would not approve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Paine would not approve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995974</id>
	<title>Voting Illegal?</title>
	<author>Domini</author>
	<datestamp>1265128740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, isn't voting a form of anonymous political free speech?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , is n't voting a form of anonymous political free speech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, isn't voting a form of anonymous political free speech?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000236</id>
	<title>Re:They are stopping it!</title>
	<author>BatGnat</author>
	<datestamp>1265144160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would probably not have stood up in court anyway.  Any way, all they would have to is cross border into other states, and post there.  Or even better Go to a Federal Government site (University), and post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would probably not have stood up in court anyway .
Any way , all they would have to is cross border into other states , and post there .
Or even better Go to a Federal Government site ( University ) , and post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would probably not have stood up in court anyway.
Any way, all they would have to is cross border into other states, and post there.
Or even better Go to a Federal Government site (University), and post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994674</id>
	<title>Austrailian Censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really a shocker from a Western Nation with some of the most outrageous censorship laws as applied to movies and video games.  That sort of thing just grows...ThinkSpeak</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really a shocker from a Western Nation with some of the most outrageous censorship laws as applied to movies and video games .
That sort of thing just grows...ThinkSpeak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really a shocker from a Western Nation with some of the most outrageous censorship laws as applied to movies and video games.
That sort of thing just grows...ThinkSpeak</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997642</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265134200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OTOH, if you hear something good about a candidate, it's good to know that it was an oil company executive or an RIAA goon who who is so enthusiastic about that particular politician.</p></div><p>You do not have a right to know the identity of people sharing their views. You do, however, have the right to ignore any anonymous opinions, and only give any consideration to those voiced by people who stand up and identify themselves.</p><p>Freedom - it's a wonderful thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , if you hear something good about a candidate , it 's good to know that it was an oil company executive or an RIAA goon who who is so enthusiastic about that particular politician.You do not have a right to know the identity of people sharing their views .
You do , however , have the right to ignore any anonymous opinions , and only give any consideration to those voiced by people who stand up and identify themselves.Freedom - it 's a wonderful thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, if you hear something good about a candidate, it's good to know that it was an oil company executive or an RIAA goon who who is so enthusiastic about that particular politician.You do not have a right to know the identity of people sharing their views.
You do, however, have the right to ignore any anonymous opinions, and only give any consideration to those voiced by people who stand up and identify themselves.Freedom - it's a wonderful thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994606</id>
	<title>ignore them, do it anyway</title>
	<author>chris.alex.thomas</author>
	<datestamp>1265123400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why are you even taking notice of what they say, there are some laws that can't be taken away, even by passing a dozen of these bills through the houses of law around the world, just ignore them, post anonymous political commentry, make sure you don't keep logs and use 7 proxies.

then when it comes to polling day, throw them out in favour of the others, I've been thinking about this and some people say that it's not enough to throw the others out and get the new gang in, because the new is as bad as the old, but there is a big difference in the way that we should do it.  instead of throwing them out for "unknown" number of possible reasons, tell them, explicitly, you were thrown out, because of enacting laws that we didnt like, we changed you like a pair of socks.

new government, be warned, you're next if you fall out of line, yeah sure, the new guys are as bad as the old guys, but self preservation might actually make them listen, you're going to get thrown out, if you don't do what we say, we don't care who replaces you, as long as you're replaced.

your message will get across someday, but in the meantime, do what you want, ignore what you want, post what you want, feel what you want</htmltext>
<tokenext>why are you even taking notice of what they say , there are some laws that ca n't be taken away , even by passing a dozen of these bills through the houses of law around the world , just ignore them , post anonymous political commentry , make sure you do n't keep logs and use 7 proxies .
then when it comes to polling day , throw them out in favour of the others , I 've been thinking about this and some people say that it 's not enough to throw the others out and get the new gang in , because the new is as bad as the old , but there is a big difference in the way that we should do it .
instead of throwing them out for " unknown " number of possible reasons , tell them , explicitly , you were thrown out , because of enacting laws that we didnt like , we changed you like a pair of socks .
new government , be warned , you 're next if you fall out of line , yeah sure , the new guys are as bad as the old guys , but self preservation might actually make them listen , you 're going to get thrown out , if you do n't do what we say , we do n't care who replaces you , as long as you 're replaced .
your message will get across someday , but in the meantime , do what you want , ignore what you want , post what you want , feel what you want</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why are you even taking notice of what they say, there are some laws that can't be taken away, even by passing a dozen of these bills through the houses of law around the world, just ignore them, post anonymous political commentry, make sure you don't keep logs and use 7 proxies.
then when it comes to polling day, throw them out in favour of the others, I've been thinking about this and some people say that it's not enough to throw the others out and get the new gang in, because the new is as bad as the old, but there is a big difference in the way that we should do it.
instead of throwing them out for "unknown" number of possible reasons, tell them, explicitly, you were thrown out, because of enacting laws that we didnt like, we changed you like a pair of socks.
new government, be warned, you're next if you fall out of line, yeah sure, the new guys are as bad as the old guys, but self preservation might actually make them listen, you're going to get thrown out, if you don't do what we say, we don't care who replaces you, as long as you're replaced.
your message will get across someday, but in the meantime, do what you want, ignore what you want, post what you want, feel what you want</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994754</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1265124120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Question: how do they know I provided accurate information? I can see a lot of 'Michael Atkinson - Adelaide' comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : how do they know I provided accurate information ?
I can see a lot of 'Michael Atkinson - Adelaide ' comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: how do they know I provided accurate information?
I can see a lot of 'Michael Atkinson - Adelaide' comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420</id>
	<title>Feh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No critisism.  Less freedom than the "suggestion box" at my office.  Lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No critisism .
Less freedom than the " suggestion box " at my office .
Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No critisism.
Less freedom than the "suggestion box" at my office.
Lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Soviet Russia joke:</title>
	<author>ztransform</author>
	<datestamp>1265124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.</p></div><p>Pretty much.

</p><p>Australian laws are largely created to criminalise anybody, anytime. You know the old joke, "<i>I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia</i>!" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.

</p><p>If you think you haven't committed any crimes today you'll have a retrospective law applied to you in the future. Never fear, nobody gets away!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.Pretty much .
Australian laws are largely created to criminalise anybody , anytime .
You know the old joke , " I read my border entry form and did n't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia !
" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal , take your pick which laws you 're breaking at any one time .
If you think you have n't committed any crimes today you 'll have a retrospective law applied to you in the future .
Never fear , nobody gets away !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.Pretty much.
Australian laws are largely created to criminalise anybody, anytime.
You know the old joke, "I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia!
" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.
If you think you haven't committed any crimes today you'll have a retrospective law applied to you in the future.
Never fear, nobody gets away!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994468</id>
	<title>oblig</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anonymity is outlawed, only outlaws will have anonymity...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anonymity is outlawed , only outlaws will have anonymity.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anonymity is outlawed, only outlaws will have anonymity...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995664</id>
	<title>Re:Feh</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1265127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?<br>You don't have anything to hide, right?</p><p>Like, you don't agree with the government - but you are not afraid to say so on internet where your boss, your family, your neighbors, and everyone else can read it? Right?</p><p>You side with the not-so-common small party. You do so because you can still vote anonymously. But you wouldn't say this to anyone because most people don't like it. But - you don't have anything to hide. So, this is ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? You do n't have anything to hide , right ? Like , you do n't agree with the government - but you are not afraid to say so on internet where your boss , your family , your neighbors , and everyone else can read it ?
Right ? You side with the not-so-common small party .
You do so because you can still vote anonymously .
But you would n't say this to anyone because most people do n't like it .
But - you do n't have anything to hide .
So , this is ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?You don't have anything to hide, right?Like, you don't agree with the government - but you are not afraid to say so on internet where your boss, your family, your neighbors, and everyone else can read it?
Right?You side with the not-so-common small party.
You do so because you can still vote anonymously.
But you wouldn't say this to anyone because most people don't like it.
But - you don't have anything to hide.
So, this is ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997964</id>
	<title>Re:This is common sense, guys</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265135220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This law doesn't stop anyone expressing any political opinion they like. All it does is require that they are prepared to put their name to it.</p></div><p>You don't need laws criminalizing political speech to politically intimidate your opponents. Sometimes, merely letting one's name known is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo\_van\_Gogh\_(film\_director)#Death" title="wikipedia.org">quite enough</a> [wikipedia.org]. And note that, while this is an extreme case, there are other, milder forms of intimidation - for example, how about getting fired for holding a particular political view, or shunned by your local society?</p><p>We absolutely need anonymous political speech for the exact same reasons why we need the secret ballot, for democracy to be anything but a sham.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This law does n't stop anyone expressing any political opinion they like .
All it does is require that they are prepared to put their name to it.You do n't need laws criminalizing political speech to politically intimidate your opponents .
Sometimes , merely letting one 's name known is quite enough [ wikipedia.org ] .
And note that , while this is an extreme case , there are other , milder forms of intimidation - for example , how about getting fired for holding a particular political view , or shunned by your local society ? We absolutely need anonymous political speech for the exact same reasons why we need the secret ballot , for democracy to be anything but a sham .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This law doesn't stop anyone expressing any political opinion they like.
All it does is require that they are prepared to put their name to it.You don't need laws criminalizing political speech to politically intimidate your opponents.
Sometimes, merely letting one's name known is quite enough [wikipedia.org].
And note that, while this is an extreme case, there are other, milder forms of intimidation - for example, how about getting fired for holding a particular political view, or shunned by your local society?We absolutely need anonymous political speech for the exact same reasons why we need the secret ballot, for democracy to be anything but a sham.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996814</id>
	<title>Surely in the upcoming election...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265131560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...they will do something about the equally noxious practice of anonymous voting.  You know, the thing the Americans call the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_ballot" title="wikipedia.org"> Australian ballot</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they will do something about the equally noxious practice of anonymous voting .
You know , the thing the Americans call the Australian ballot [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they will do something about the equally noxious practice of anonymous voting.
You know, the thing the Americans call the  Australian ballot [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002586</id>
	<title>Re:Feh</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1265112960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Atkinson the guy that believes videogames are satanic?</p><p>He uses Rape Lay (a game not even available in Australia) to push his efforts to get videogames banned.</p><p>Or something like that. I'm not an Aussie.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Atkinson the guy that believes videogames are satanic ? He uses Rape Lay ( a game not even available in Australia ) to push his efforts to get videogames banned.Or something like that .
I 'm not an Aussie .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Atkinson the guy that believes videogames are satanic?He uses Rape Lay (a game not even available in Australia) to push his efforts to get videogames banned.Or something like that.
I'm not an Aussie.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001652</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not Australian but...</title>
	<author>arkenian</author>
	<datestamp>1265107680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I feel obliged to point out that ONE reason it doesn't say "Brought to you by the Exxon Corporation" is because until the aforementioned Supreme Court decision, the Exxon corporation wasn't allowed to make political ads, just to contribute to PACs.  Which isn't to say I agree, and actually its one reason why I think that the supreme court decision will have less immediately visible effect than people expect -- Corps have gotten so used to hiding behind deceptive PAC names they won't want to stop.  Which isn't to say its a good decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I feel obliged to point out that ONE reason it does n't say " Brought to you by the Exxon Corporation " is because until the aforementioned Supreme Court decision , the Exxon corporation was n't allowed to make political ads , just to contribute to PACs .
Which is n't to say I agree , and actually its one reason why I think that the supreme court decision will have less immediately visible effect than people expect -- Corps have gotten so used to hiding behind deceptive PAC names they wo n't want to stop .
Which is n't to say its a good decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I feel obliged to point out that ONE reason it doesn't say "Brought to you by the Exxon Corporation" is because until the aforementioned Supreme Court decision, the Exxon corporation wasn't allowed to make political ads, just to contribute to PACs.
Which isn't to say I agree, and actually its one reason why I think that the supreme court decision will have less immediately visible effect than people expect -- Corps have gotten so used to hiding behind deceptive PAC names they won't want to stop.
Which isn't to say its a good decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995850</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>A. B3ttik</author>
	<datestamp>1265128380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe 4Chan should get involved...</p></div><p>That's easy... just tell them that the Australian Government beat up a cat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe 4Chan should get involved...That 's easy... just tell them that the Australian Government beat up a cat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe 4Chan should get involved...That's easy... just tell them that the Australian Government beat up a cat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31005670</id>
	<title>Re:What the fuck</title>
	<author>xpsgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1265131440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>funnily enough, at one stage in Australia, there were total bans on political commentary in the 24 hours leading up to the election, but only a ban on the use of electronic media. The press could print whatever they liked. It used to be a well-known factoid that the outcome of many elections was determined by the Saturday morning newspaper editorial... <p>
There is a ban on 'political advertising' in Australia for 3 days prior to an election as well. To quote from <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb05.htm" title="aph.gov.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb05.htm</a> [aph.gov.au] (an Australian Government Research Paper into Political Advertising in Australia):</p><blockquote><div><p>Clause [...] 4 of Schedule 2 [to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992] require[s] broadcasters to [...] cease political advertisements in the three days before polling day (from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of the poll on polling day).</p><p>

The aim of [the above] clause, which requires what is commonly known as the electronic media &lsquo;blackout&rsquo;, is to &lsquo;provide a &ldquo;cooling off period&rdquo; for electors to consider their stance on the issues without the influences of electronic media advertising&rsquo;. This provision had been in place for about 50 years before being deemed unnecessary in 1991 when a complete election advertising ban was imposed [...]. However, it was re-enacted in 1992 after a High Court decision declared the complete ban invalid. The &lsquo;blackout&rsquo; can also be seen to prevent parties making claims late in election campaigns that cannot be scrutinised before election day.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
However, as you can see from the quote, political parties can in fact advertise in 'non-electronic' media...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>funnily enough , at one stage in Australia , there were total bans on political commentary in the 24 hours leading up to the election , but only a ban on the use of electronic media .
The press could print whatever they liked .
It used to be a well-known factoid that the outcome of many elections was determined by the Saturday morning newspaper editorial.. . There is a ban on 'political advertising ' in Australia for 3 days prior to an election as well .
To quote from http : //www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb05.htm [ aph.gov.au ] ( an Australian Government Research Paper into Political Advertising in Australia ) : Clause [ ... ] 4 of Schedule 2 [ to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ] require [ s ] broadcasters to [ ... ] cease political advertisements in the three days before polling day ( from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of the poll on polling day ) .
The aim of [ the above ] clause , which requires what is commonly known as the electronic media    blackout    , is to    provide a    cooling off period    for electors to consider their stance on the issues without the influences of electronic media advertising    .
This provision had been in place for about 50 years before being deemed unnecessary in 1991 when a complete election advertising ban was imposed [ ... ] .
However , it was re-enacted in 1992 after a High Court decision declared the complete ban invalid .
The    blackout    can also be seen to prevent parties making claims late in election campaigns that can not be scrutinised before election day .
However , as you can see from the quote , political parties can in fact advertise in 'non-electronic ' media.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>funnily enough, at one stage in Australia, there were total bans on political commentary in the 24 hours leading up to the election, but only a ban on the use of electronic media.
The press could print whatever they liked.
It used to be a well-known factoid that the outcome of many elections was determined by the Saturday morning newspaper editorial... 
There is a ban on 'political advertising' in Australia for 3 days prior to an election as well.
To quote from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb05.htm [aph.gov.au] (an Australian Government Research Paper into Political Advertising in Australia):Clause [...] 4 of Schedule 2 [to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992] require[s] broadcasters to [...] cease political advertisements in the three days before polling day (from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of the poll on polling day).
The aim of [the above] clause, which requires what is commonly known as the electronic media ‘blackout’, is to ‘provide a “cooling off period” for electors to consider their stance on the issues without the influences of electronic media advertising’.
This provision had been in place for about 50 years before being deemed unnecessary in 1991 when a complete election advertising ban was imposed [...].
However, it was re-enacted in 1992 after a High Court decision declared the complete ban invalid.
The ‘blackout’ can also be seen to prevent parties making claims late in election campaigns that cannot be scrutinised before election day.
However, as you can see from the quote, political parties can in fact advertise in 'non-electronic' media...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000340</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to forget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put down the kool-aid. In your explanation, the people doing the "retaliation" are going to be the politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put down the kool-aid .
In your explanation , the people doing the " retaliation " are going to be the politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put down the kool-aid.
In your explanation, the people doing the "retaliation" are going to be the politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995010</id>
	<title>The U.S. has solved this problem</title>
	<author>I\_Voter</author>
	<datestamp>1265125260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The U.S. has solved this problem by removing the significance of honesty from party politics.<br> <br>

Understanding the relationship between political parties, and political rhetoric <br>in the U.S.
<a href="http://bit.ly/117M0o" title="bit.ly" rel="nofollow">What is a Political Party?</a> [bit.ly] <br> <br>

<b>
I\_Voter</b> <br>
My very amateur Web Site:<br>
<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/usvotersite" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. has solved this problem by removing the significance of honesty from party politics .
Understanding the relationship between political parties , and political rhetoric in the U.S . What is a Political Party ?
[ bit.ly ] I \ _Voter My very amateur Web Site : Citizen 's Political Power in the U.S. [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. has solved this problem by removing the significance of honesty from party politics.
Understanding the relationship between political parties, and political rhetoric in the U.S.
What is a Political Party?
[bit.ly]  


I\_Voter 
My very amateur Web Site:
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S. [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486</id>
	<title>Obligatory Soviet Russia joke:</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1265122800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech.<br> <br>

The American constitution guarantees freedom <b>after</b> speech.<br> <br>

Obviously the Australia  constitution guarantees nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech .
The American constitution guarantees freedom after speech .
Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech.
The American constitution guarantees freedom after speech.
Obviously the Australia  constitution guarantees nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997294</id>
	<title>Re:Fortunately, the U.S. SCOTUS Disagrees</title>
	<author>wes33</author>
	<datestamp>1265133180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be Scalia and *Rehnquist*.<br>Thomas agreed with the majority.</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/20/us/justices-allow-unsigned-political-fliers.html?pagewanted=all" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/20/us/justices-allow-unsigned-political-fliers.html?pagewanted=all</a> [nytimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be Scalia and * Rehnquist * .Thomas agreed with the majority.http : //www.nytimes.com/1995/04/20/us/justices-allow-unsigned-political-fliers.html ? pagewanted = all [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be Scalia and *Rehnquist*.Thomas agreed with the majority.http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/20/us/justices-allow-unsigned-political-fliers.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722</id>
	<title>Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By 4chan you mean a bunch of nerdy teenagers?</p><p>Onoes what will they do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By 4chan you mean a bunch of nerdy teenagers ? Onoes what will they do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By 4chan you mean a bunch of nerdy teenagers?Onoes what will they do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994828</id>
	<title>Re:Enforceability</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1265124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That implies they care about universal enforcement of the law.  They don't really care if someone whines about a traffic fine anonymously on the blog.  No, they'll go after "particular" offenders, or they'll use it to punish dissidents they particularly dislike after already having them so they have something that can stick.  That's how modern democracy works, after all--enough laws and you'll be able to nail someone on something eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That implies they care about universal enforcement of the law .
They do n't really care if someone whines about a traffic fine anonymously on the blog .
No , they 'll go after " particular " offenders , or they 'll use it to punish dissidents they particularly dislike after already having them so they have something that can stick .
That 's how modern democracy works , after all--enough laws and you 'll be able to nail someone on something eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That implies they care about universal enforcement of the law.
They don't really care if someone whines about a traffic fine anonymously on the blog.
No, they'll go after "particular" offenders, or they'll use it to punish dissidents they particularly dislike after already having them so they have something that can stick.
That's how modern democracy works, after all--enough laws and you'll be able to nail someone on something eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997692</id>
	<title>Tried and true...</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1265134380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for paper, pen, and stapler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for paper , pen , and stapler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for paper, pen, and stapler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994746</id>
	<title>Suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australia... change your govern NOW!.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia... change your govern NOW ! .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia... change your govern NOW!.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995718</id>
	<title>Why dont we...</title>
	<author>Year1968</author>
	<datestamp>1265128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.....suggest to them that they stop the anonymous voting on electionday?</htmltext>
<tokenext>.....suggest to them that they stop the anonymous voting on electionday ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....suggest to them that they stop the anonymous voting on electionday?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995626</id>
	<title>Oh this makes my head hurt</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265127780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so you going to prosecute the anonymous commenter? How!? <br>
Few anonymous proxies and you'll never know who they are. To implement this you need to lock everything down so much no one will support you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so you going to prosecute the anonymous commenter ?
How ! ? Few anonymous proxies and you 'll never know who they are .
To implement this you need to lock everything down so much no one will support you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so you going to prosecute the anonymous commenter?
How!? 
Few anonymous proxies and you'll never know who they are.
To implement this you need to lock everything down so much no one will support you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995238</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is with Australia lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amusingly the same guy who sponsored this law is the same one who is responsible for video game censorship. For a state MP he's getting a lot of international coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amusingly the same guy who sponsored this law is the same one who is responsible for video game censorship .
For a state MP he 's getting a lot of international coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amusingly the same guy who sponsored this law is the same one who is responsible for video game censorship.
For a state MP he's getting a lot of international coverage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484</id>
	<title>My views</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both parties suck.</p><p>Come find me bitches!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both parties suck.Come find me bitches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both parties suck.Come find me bitches!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994838</id>
	<title>WTF is with Australia lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That government has been on quite the moral tear lately--banning videogames, arresting people for looking at naked Simpsons characters, etc. I always thought the U.S. was supposed to be the puritanical country in the English-speaking world, but lately it seems like the Australia and the UK are making America look open-minded and progressive by comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That government has been on quite the moral tear lately--banning videogames , arresting people for looking at naked Simpsons characters , etc .
I always thought the U.S. was supposed to be the puritanical country in the English-speaking world , but lately it seems like the Australia and the UK are making America look open-minded and progressive by comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That government has been on quite the moral tear lately--banning videogames, arresting people for looking at naked Simpsons characters, etc.
I always thought the U.S. was supposed to be the puritanical country in the English-speaking world, but lately it seems like the Australia and the UK are making America look open-minded and progressive by comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31004128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31003686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31041836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31005670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31011786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31003666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31004850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1318221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31007158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31003686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31005670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31004850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31001652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31041836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31004128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30998778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31000056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31011786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31007158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31002488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30999050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30995752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.31003666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30994804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30997294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1318221.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1318221.30996232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
